Auckland Regional Landscape Assessment
for Auckland Regional Council
Comprising:
Stage 1 Identification of a Representative Sample of Regional
Landscapes, Photography of All Landscape Types, Identification of Natural Character Indicators
Stage 2
Public Perceptions of Outstanding Natural Landscapes in the Auckland Region
Stage 3
Delineation of the Outstanding Natural Landscapes of the Region
John R Fairweather AERU, Lincoln University
and
Simon R Swaffield
Environment Society and Design Division, Lincoln University
In association with Boffa Miskell and Stephen Brown Landscape Architects
Compiled July 2006
01268-014 rdl 29-10-02 rdl Stage 1 Report Page 1
Auckland Regional Landscape Assessment Study Stage 1 Report Project undertaken by: Stephen Brown Landscape Architecture (Stephen Brown) Lincoln University
Environmental Management and Design Division (Simon Swaffield and John Fairweather) Boffa Miskell (John Goodwin and Rachel de Lambert)
1.0 Introduction Auckland Regional Council (ARC) has for some time been investigating the best methodological approach in relation to reviewing and updating the original Regional Landscape Assessment completed in 1984 (An Assessment of the Auckland Region’s Landscape, Auckland Regional Authority, Planning Department, 1984). This investigatory phase culminated in a report prepared for the ARC by Stephen Brown (Stephen Brown Landscape Architecture), one of the original authors of the 1984 study, entitled ‘Auckland Regional Landscape Assessment, Assessment Methodology Report’, March 2002. This document has formed the basis of a brief to consultants extended by the ARC in March of this year (2002). A consortium of established landscape practitioners in the field of landscape assessment (Stephen Brown of Stephen Brown Landscape Architecture, Simon Swaffield and John Fairweather of Lincoln University and John Goodwin and Rachel de Lambert of Boffa Miskell) jointly tendered for this project and were awarded the contract. To date the first Stage of this review project, the Auckland Regional Landscape Assessment Study (ARLAS) has been undertaken, this report documents the progress of Stage 1, its methodology, process and outputs. 2.0 The Brief The 1984 Regional Landscape Assessment, as one of the first comprehensive landscape resource evaluation projects in New Zealand, adopted a ‘public preference’ rather than ‘expert opinion’ methodology. A key decision for the Regional Landscape Assessment review project was to pursue an updated public preference approach. The Stage 1 brief as established in the Assessment Methodology Report was as follows:
01268-014 rdl 29-10-02 rdl Stage 1 Report Page 2
The focus of Stage 1 was therefore to complete the work that would enable Stage 2, the public preference testing stage, to be undertaken. The inclusion of work in relation to the natural character indicators stemmed from work being undertaken by the Ministry for the Environment (MFE) ‘Environmental Performance Indicators for Natural Character’ and the ARC’s separate interest in this area. This part of the project has been discrete from the landscape assessment review, the primary objective of which has been the identification of the region’s outstanding natural landscapes (RM Act Section 6(b)).
IDENTIFICATION OF A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE OF REGIONAL LANDSCAPES (preferably no more than 100 ‘landscape types’) – utilising: Field Work The 1984 Regional Landscape Assessment The 1994-5 Regional Coastal Assessments
PHOTOGRAPHY (semi-panoramic or panoramic) – OF ALL LANDSCAPE TYPES
IDENTIFICATION OF NATURAL CHARACTER INDICATORS – that can be used to assess natural character parametrically, e.g. Landform Vegetation cover, particularly indigenous vegetation Other ecological patterns Water bodies Lack of built elements and human influences Ambience (wildness, wilderness, remoteness)
STAGE 1
01268-014 rdl 29-10-02 rdl Stage 1 Report Page 3
3.0 Stage 1 Outcomes 3.1 Workshops A number of internal workshops have been held to advance Stage 1 both to agree the detail of the project process and methodology and to clarify the outputs required at each stage, including scoping the work for both Stages 2 and 3. In total 3 workshops were held as follows: Workshop 1 - 3rd May 2002 Workshop 2 - 27th June 2002 Workshop 3 - 4th/5th November 2002. Workshop attendees included Stephen Brown, Simon Swaffield, John Goodwin, Rachel de Lambert and Nikki Le Mesurier (1 & 2 only) from the Project Team; and Louise Gobby, Karen Baverstock (1 & 2 only) and Graeme Campbell (1 only) as client representatives. In addition Allan Rackham from Boffa Miskell Christchurch attended the Natural Character Workshop. A summary of the workshop minutes is appended (Appendix 1). 3.2 Representative Samples of Regional Landscapes The regional landscape types proposed for this study are based on a combination of biophysical and natural character indicators. They are: Coastal; Estuarine / Harbour; Ranges / Hills / Volcanic; Lowlands / Wetlands.
All landscape types have been field surveyed and photographs taken which represent the varied characteristics and qualities in each type. Having taken some 1,500 photographs over a 5 month period, 30 were selected for each landscape type to be used in the next stage of the project, the Q-Sort Interviews and Analysis. This selection was based on the differing landform, vegetation and degree of modification exhibited in each landscape type. The basis for this selection is outlined in Appendix 2. 3.3 Natural Character Indicators The natural character indicators were the focus of discussions at the second Workshop on the 27th of June 2002. A definition of natural character resulting from an extensive consultation process undertaken by MfE is as follows:
01268-014 rdl 29-10-02 rdl Stage 1 Report Page 4
Natural character is a term used to describe the naturalness of all coastal environments. The degree or level of natural character within an area depends on: 1. The extent to which natural elements, patterns and processes occur 2. The nature and extent of modifications to the ecosystems and
landscape/seascape The highest degree of natural character (greatest naturalness) occurs where there is least modification. The effect of different types of modification upon the natural character of an area varies with the context, and may be perceived differently by different parts of the community.
Note: This does not include the ecological component of natural character.
Following that workshop and further meetings with the ARC, the following six natural character indicators were agreed: Landform modification; Waterform modification; Indigenous Vegetation cover; Vegetation Pattern; Buildings / Structures; Infrastructure.
These six criteria are listed below with a discussion of their use in the assessment of natural character values. Landform Modification
In most coastal environments in New Zealand there are relatively few modifications to landforms. However, major changes can occur with reclamation, roading, quarrying and mining, in particular. Lesser levels of change may occur through construction of access tracks, drainage works, contouring of sand dunes and hill country, and creating flat building platforms. Modifications of a significant scale are today likely to involve resource consents. Assessed on a scale from totally unmodified to heavily modified. Waterform Modification
Major changes to water bodies such as rivers and wetlands within the coastal environment can occur with artificial control of flow regimes, drainage and channelisation. These criteria apply principally to the land portion of the coastal environment, although outflows of rivers and streams cross the inter-tidal zone across beaches and mudflats. Waterform changes also apply to the ocean where there are modifications to the sea from unnatural causes (e.g. discolouration from sand
01268-014 rdl 29-10-02 rdl Stage 1 Report Page 5
dredging, surf waves from artificial reefs). Modifications of a significant scale are likely to involve water permits or other consents. Assessed on a scale from totally unmodified to heavily modified. Indigenous Vegetation Cover
The presence of indigenous vegetation is indicative of a lack of modification. The greater the percentage cover of native vegetation, the higher the degree of naturalness. The presence of other vegetation such as forestry and pasture will result in a more moderate rating for this criterion compared to a highly urbanised area. Assessed on a scale from unmodified original cover to absence of vegetation cover. Vegetation Pattern
This criterion applies to the patterns of vegetation cover. It includes all types of indigenous and exotic vegetation. The key consideration is whether the patterns resulting from different vegetation types appear natural or artificial. This will usually depend on the regularity, linearity or geometry that result from commercial forestry, farming or development. It will also depend on the integration or contrast of these patterns with the underlying landform, e.g. relationship to natural ridge and gully landform. Assessed from highly natural patterns to least natural patterns. Buildings and Structures
This criterion includes all buildings and any separate structures, e.g. telecommunication towers. It excludes linear structures such as transmission lines which are included as infrastructure. The number, density, scale and location of buildings/structures will influence the degree to which this criterion will affect natural character. These modifications will normally require resource consents unless they are of a small scale. Assessed on a scale from no structures to an artificial built environment.
Infrastructure
This criterion includes linear features such as roads, tracks and paths, transmission towers/poles, lines and fences. Their number, density, scale and location will influence the degree to which this criterion will affect natural character. Unless they are major elements, e.g. transmission lines, many of these modifications may not require resource consent. Assessed on a scale from no structures to an artificial built environment. It was also agreed that these indicators would be applied to four zones within the coastal environment: Sub-tidal;
Intertidal;
Coastal Dominance;
Coastal Influence.
01268-014 rdl 29-10-02 rdl Stage 1 Report Page 6
Having agreed the indicators, for natural character and the delineation of the coastal environment, this part of the first stage of the ARLS project was complete. 4.0 Stage 2 Stage 2 of the project involves: (i) A Q-Sort survey of sample audiences within the general community of the
Auckland Region, key interest groups, and resource managers and politicians to test their response to the characteristics and qualities within differing landscape types.
(ii) An analysis of the responses to determine which characteristics and qualities
can be applied to identify outstanding and iconic landscapes in the Auckland Region.
A methodology for this stage is outlined in Appendix 3. Following the third workshop the questionnaire to be used in the Q-Sort interview and the recording sheet were developed. They are attached in Appendix 4. In order to assist with determining the Iconic Landscapes throughout the Auckland Region it was agreed that a research brief should be prepared to review literature and the arts to provide a further level of knowledge in relation to outstanding landscapes. This brief is attached as Appendix 5. Stage 2 is programmed to run from November 2002 to March 2003. An outline of the programme for this work is attached as Appendix 6.
Marine Coastal Dominance
Coastal Influence
COASTAL ENVIRONMENT HINTERLAND CATCHMENT
Inte
rtida
l
01268-014 rdl 29-10-02 rdl Stage 1 Report - Appendices Page A1
Appendix 1 : Workshops Workshop 1 : 3rd May 2002 A summary of the conclusions resulting from the first workshop is as follows: 1. Purpose The purpose of the workshop was to: (i) confirm/refine the methodology / process to be used for the Regional
Landscape Assessment;
(ii) present and discuss the proposed refined methodology with ARC representatives.
2. Outcomes Agreed outcomes from this workshop were:
Rather than using the existing landscape units derived in the 1984 study (as the boundaries on these may no longer be valid and many units replicated landscape of the same ‘generic type’) it was therefore agreed that broad landscape types would be utilised based on a combination of biophysical and natural character indicators.
The public perception of landscape would be derived from a Q-Sort process utilising photographs representative of the different landscape types.
This process would be used to draw out and determine what characteristics and qualities the public considers to be present in outstanding natural landscapes.
Once this is determined the characteristics and qualities can be applied as relevant across the region and outstanding natural landscapes within the Auckland Region determined.
Landscape types proposed: Coastal Estuarine / Harbour Ranges / Hills / Volcanic Lowlands / Wetlands
In order to achieve a managable Q-Sort approximately 30 images will be used per landscape type.
Q-Sort questions will be along the lines of: a) Order these images in terms of ‘Outstanding’. b) Where do you draw the line in terms of ‘Outstanding Natural
Landscapes’? c) What are the qualities that make it ‘Outstanding’? d) What sort of changes would degrade that landscape?
Agreed to do both intercept interviews, i.e. people in the street, and key informant interviews, e.g. ARC personnel, TLA’s, schools, politicians etc.
01268-014 rdl 29-10-02 rdl Stage 1 Report - Appendices Page A2
3. Imagery Documentation Photos to be taken using a 35mm-70mm lens range.
Sky to be a neutral backdrop and as similar as possible for all images.
Tide to be similar for all images – mid-tide.
Lighting to be similar, generally 10 am – 2 pm. Workshop 2 : 27th June 2002 1. Purpose (i) To update on field work progress in relation to completing the
photography. (ii) Update the project team on the MFE EPI work in relation to Natural
Character. (iii) To agree what indicators should be used for determining natural
character in the Auckland Region. (iv) To review this with the ARC. 2. Outcomes Agreed outcomes from this workshop were:
Provide a camera dedicated to this study and guarantee availability of a vehicle for field work to make the most of weather and tide opportunities.
Extend the time frame to enable the photography to be completed
during improved weather conditions.
Natural character is a subset of landscape character.
An overall scale from Endemic (Highly Natural) to Non-Endemic
(Highly Modified) was agreed.
It is highly likely that Regional Councils will want to be more refined than MfE.
In terms of an overall 1 to 10 scale the Auckland Region’s natural
character is likely to range from 3 to 10, therefore the areas of high natural character in a Regional context may not register on a national inventory.
A range of environments to consider natural character within was put
forward – Wilderness – Working – Urban.
The extent of the coastal environment needs to be delineated, e.g. water/land/water interface hydrological catchment.
01268-014 rdl 29-10-02 rdl Stage 1 Report - Appendices Page A3
The main focus of the EPI is on:
What have we got? Where is it located? How is it changing?
with MfE’s emphasis on the what and were (in relation to preservation
of natural character) and Regional Councils’ on the how (in relation to protection from inappropriate subdivision; use and development) Section 6(a) RM Act.
The following table outlines the range of indicators generally agreed at
the workshop.
ELEMENTS PATTERNS PROCESS
LAND Modifications to landform (Resource Consent)
ABIOTIC
WATER
Degradation of water quality (Sedimentation/ faecal coliforms )
IND VEGE
Clearance (change in % of cover)
Fragmentation (Land cover data base) Regeneration
EXOTIC VEGE
Homogeneity (LCDB)
Geometry (Linearity) (Visual survey and aerial photos)
BIOTIC
WILDLIFE
(Infra) STRUCTURE
Presence (building consent) (Aerial photos)
Location Density (amount) Contrast? (Visual survey, aerial photos)
A possible outcome was for the MfE and Regional Councils (ARC) to
undertake a common description / measurement of the natural character in a Region as a baseline. MfE would utilise this information as a basis to monitor how natural character is changing, whereas the Regional Councils would focus on the significance of the natural character baseline data and how to utilise it to determine what is appropriate – objectives, policies etc.
01268-014 rdl 29-10-02 rdl Stage 1 Report - Appendices Page A4
Workshop 3 : 4th/5th November 1. Purpose/Agenda 1. To confirm the photographs chosen for the various landscape types. 2. Review and amend questions for interviews. 3. Discuss the Key Informants and their number from each organisation. 4. Determine the intercept locations and the method. 5. Review the programme. 6. Discuss the issue of establishing Iconic Landscapes. 7. Review the criteria for determining the Landscape Types. 2. Agreed Outcomes
Need to cover the issue of iconic landscapes by way of a literature / photograph / poetry /painting search.
3 sets of photos required for each of the 4 landscape types (i.e. 120 photos) laminated and referenced.
Agreed that we need to have a 5th set of photographs copied and laminated (i.e. 30 photos) from a combination of the 4 landscape types i.e. between 7 and 8 photos from each.
Agreed to use caravan for intercept interviews.
Agreed to get assistance for Researcher in the field.
Documented criteria for choosing photos.
Agreed study excludes urban and suburban areas.
Agreed to run Q-Sort interviews at NZILA evening.
Agreed John G and Louise to determine key informants. Includes: ARC - all 13 councillors invited
- key staff. All other 7 TLA’s to have 3 key informants, e.g. chair of
Planning Committee, Senior Policy Planner, Senior Consents Planner.
Iwi Representation Other key stakeholders - DOC
- MFE - Forest & Bird
01268-014 rdl 29-10-02 rdl Stage 1 Report - Appendices Page A5
- EDS Interest Groups, e.g. - Federated Farmers
- NZ Forest Owners Assn - Small Farmers - Farm Forestry - Property Council - Fish & Game - Outdoor Boating Association
Others - NZ Herald - Metro - Adventure Group - Asian/Polynesian Community Representative
Need to develop a Health and Safety Plan for Intercept Interviews.
Replace the Objectives and Policies component of Stage 3 with the Iconic Landscapes brief.
01268-014 rdl 29-10-02 rdl Stage 1 Report - Appendices Page A6
Appendix 2 Selection of representative photos – 30 Coastal Landform/topography Beach type Vegetation Modification
Defined high coastal escarpment Rocky shear Intact native
vegetation No built development
Low escarpment Rocky Mixed native/exotic Infrastructure roads/ powerlines
Dunes Boulders Exotic vegetation Scattered houses
Hills / rolling land Shingle Forestry Urban background
Lowland White sand Pasture Prominent urban
Expansive bays and headlands Black sand Intensive land uses
Selection of representative photos – 30 Hill Country / ranges Landform/topography Vegetation Modification
Water bodies Intact native vegetation No built development
Ranges Mixed native/exotic Fencelines
Steep hills Exotic Infrastructure / roads, tracks/powerlines
Strongly rolling Remnant native pocket Sheds/rural buildings
Gently rolling Native remnant trees Individual farm houses
Enclosed Forestry Scattered low density houses
Expansive Poor pasture Rural residential
Good pasture Horticulture – glass houses
Orchard
Horticulture
01268-014 rdl 29-10-02 rdl Stage 1 Report - Appendices Page A7
Selection of representative photos – 30 Lowland / Wetland Landform/topography Vegetation Modification
Saltwater wetland Intact native vegetation No built development
Freshwater wetland Mixed native/exotic Fencelines
Dune impounded lakes Exotic Infrastructure / roads, tracks/powerlines
Duneland, low lying plains Remnant native pocket Sheds / rural buildings
Plains Native remnant trees Individual farm houses
Low rolling lands Forestry Scattered low density houses
Expansive Poor pasture Rural residential
More enclosed Good pasture Horticulture – glass houses
Wetland salt/freshwater
Horticulture
Selection of representative photos – 30 Estuarine / Harbour Landform/topography Beach type Vegetation Modification
High escarpment Rocky Mangrove No built development
Low escarpment Rock platforms Intact native Infrastructure roads/powerlines
Hills rolling Boulders Mixed exotic Scattered houses (low density)
Lowland Shingle Forestry Urban background
Open harbour Sandy Pasture Prominent urban
Estuarine Mudflats Intensive land uses Port
River mouth
Expansive bays and headlands
01268-014 rdl 29-10-02 rdl Stage 1 Report - Appendices Page A8
Appendix 3 Stage 2 : Methodology for Q Sort Survey and Analysis Method The survey and analysis has five stages: preparation, respondent interviews, data entry and numerical analysis, summary interpretation, synthesis and report. Step 1 Preparation The preparation phase involves production of postcard size photographic prints, which are laminated to reduce wear and tear, and randomly numbered. Each Q sort will require 3 complete sets, to allow for an office reference set, a field work set, and a field back up set. Hence there will be 90 cards for each Q sort, and 450 in total. The field interviewer will also require prepared response sheets, with pre-printed boxes to record the distribution of photo numbers, and sections in which comments, responses to supplementary questions, and biographical data can be recorded. Before commencing the survey, an initial list of key informants will be drawn up, in consultation with the client and project team, and sites identified for the intercept surveys. The field researcher will also need to become familiar with the interview process. The first part of the field interviews are normally undertaken in the form of a pilot survey, in which the project leader trains the field researcher, whilst also trialling the selected Q sorts. For this reason, it is sensible to initially prepare only one set of cards, and to prepare the second and third sets once the selection has been confirmed in the pilot survey. Hence the preparation and interview phases overlap to some degree. Step 2 Interviews Q Sort requires respondents to sort photos into a sequence of piles. In this study the sorting will be based upon the instruction: “Please sort the different types of landscape shown in the photographs into a sequence from those which are most ‘outstanding’ to those which are least ‘outstanding’”. There will be a specified number of piles, and a specified number of photos allowed in each pile, with fewer allowed in the extremes of the range. The exact configuration of each Q sort will be determined after the photographic field work has been completed and the representative landscapes selected. During the sorting process, the interviewer encourages the respondent to comment upon the different landscape types shown in the photos, and upon why they are being placed in the chosen location. When the sort is complete, the interviewer will note the reference numbers of the photos placed in each pile, and the respondent will be asked several supplementary questions (in this case: where do you draw the line in terms of what types of landscape are clearly outstanding and what are just good? What are the qualities that make the chosen landscape types outstanding? What are the sort of changes that would be inappropriate in this type of landscape, and that would reduce the qualities that make it outstanding?). Finally, basic biographical details are noted.
01268-014 rdl 29-10-02 rdl Stage 1 Report - Appendices Page A9
An experienced interviewer will be able to complete around 4 key informant interviews for which appointments have to be made in a day, and 10 intercept surveys in a public place. In planning the survey, it is necessary to decide upon the sampling approach for respondents. Q sort analysis does not require a random sample. It is more typical to undertake a ‘theoretical’ sample, which seeks interviews with key informants from a range of relevant stakeholder groups. However, in a diverse community it is also desirable to seek a stratified sample of representatives from different parts of the community who may not be seen as formal stakeholders. For the Auckland regional survey, both key informants and public intercept surveys are proposed. In estimating the time required, the critical variables are the number of survey interviews to be undertaken in total, and whether they are key informants or intercept surveys. There are two influences on total sample size: analysis, and representativeness. Analytically, for a single Q sort, Simon’s research has found that the factors stabilise (i.e. the addition of further responses makes little if any difference to a factor array) by the time there are 12 people loading on a factor. However, not all respondents load significantly onto a factor; a typical multi- factor solution may incorporate 60-70% of all respondents (the remainder produced highly individual responses). Hence, a three factor Q sort will need between 60-70 respondents to be confident that the results have identified a robust set of factors. In this survey, we plan 5 different Q sorts, based on the generic landscape types present in the region. At this stage we have no idea whether there will be 1, 2, 3 or even 4 factors for each of these types. We must therefore plan for at least 5 x 4 factor Q sorts, which suggests a sample of 350. This would ensure that the factors were stable. The other influence is the need for credibility in terms of the representativeness of the respondents, in relation to the regional communities. Q sort identifies ways of valuing landscapes that are present in the community from which the respondents are drawn. It does not predict the values that characterise the population as a whole. In a survey of this sort, it is important that respondents are drawn from all sectors of the regional community. This community is very diverse: geographically, ethnically and culturally, and socially. We propose to undertake key informant surveys which draw upon people from the main stakeholder and ethnic groups in the region. To complement this we propose intercept surveys in a public space in each of the Districts of the region. In a smaller more homogenous community Simon has found 50-60 key informants provides a good representative range. Here we propose 150 region wide. For the intercepts, we propose 5 x 50 (hence allowing for the possibility of district specific factors). This would come to 400 in total, which comfortably covers the analytical requirements in terms of different landscape types. Each location in the intercept survey would include a mix of landscape types. A similar mix will be used for the key informants, but there may also be opportunity for individual informants to undertake more than one Q sort, if they are willing. This will further increase the strength of the results.
01268-014 rdl 29-10-02 rdl Stage 1 Report - Appendices Page A10
Step 3 Data Analysis Once the surveys have been completed in the field, the numerical distributions are entered into the software package, and the relevant comments transcribed into notes for each respondent. The analysis is undertaken in two steps: first, a numerical varimax factor analysis which identifies the factor arrays (i.e. typical distributions) that provide the best statistical explanation of the overall results. Second, a qualitative analysis of the factors that have been identified, based upon the content of the photographs, and the comments made upon them. Numerical and qualitative content analysis of the recorded comments on thresholds, qualities and change will also be needed. Step 4 Summary Interpretation Finally a factor interpretation is prepared that draws together the data into a written account of the factors, summarising the survey respondents’ views on which landscape types are clearly outstanding, why, and how they are vunerable. This final interpretation may find that there is more than one factor for each Q sort (i.e. there are two or more ways in which respondents have evaluated the landscape type). In this case, the analysis also identifies how these factors differ, and where they have commonalities. The basic Q sort analysis will not compare the findings for the different landscape types. This will need to be incorporated into the synthesis and reporting stage of Stage 2. Step 5 Synthesis and Report A synthesis of the above material into a report. Output The output from the Q sort survey will be an in-house report that includes: tabular summaries of the factor arrays for each of the 5 Q Sorts;
graphic illustrations of the photographs in each factor array, arranged in the distribution identified by the factor (one A4 sheet per factor);
a written characterisation of each factor, including selected quotes from respondents that illustrate its main features;
identification of commonalities and key differences between the factors in each Q sort;
tabular summaries of the responses to the supplementary questions; and,
a summary tabular analysis of the biographical characteristics of the respondents who load upon each factor.
Additional Surveys There are additional survey opportunities to increase public awareness of the overall assessment. It would be a relatively simple task for the ARC public relations team to prepare a package for distribution to schools and/or councillors based upon the Q sort
01268-014 rdl 29-10-02 rdl Stage 1 Report - Appendices Page A11
survey, which enabled geography teachers to undertake the survey in their classes. This would significantly enhance the public profile of the survey, whilst engaging future generations in the task. A summary response form could enable the numerical data to be returned. Additional time would need to be budgeted to analyse this data. A second opportunity would be to prepare a web based survey based upon the basic Q sort, which enabled on-line responses. There is precedent for this approach in the US.
Inte
rcep
t & K
ey In
form
ant I
nter
view
0126
8-01
4 rdl
29-1
0-02
rdl
Stag
e 1 R
epor
t P
age 1
2
App
endi
x 4
Q-S
ort I
nter
view
and
Rec
ordi
ng S
heet
s
PREF
AC
E
The
purp
ose
of th
e ex
erci
se is
to id
entif
y th
e ou
tsta
ndin
g na
tura
l lan
dsca
pes
of th
e Au
ckla
nd R
egio
n.
Out
stan
ding
nat
ural
land
scap
es s
houl
d be
reas
onab
ly s
elf a
ppar
ent a
nd re
flect
val
ues
held
by
the
com
mun
ity a
t la
rge.
Q
UES
TIO
NS
1.
Ple
ase
orde
r the
se p
hoto
grap
hs fr
om th
ose
whi
ch re
pres
ent t
he m
ost o
utst
andi
ng n
atur
al la
ndsc
apes
to th
ose
that
leas
t fit
this
des
crip
tion.
2.
P
leas
e id
entif
y th
ose
land
scap
es w
hich
you
rega
rd a
s tru
ly o
utst
andi
ng.
(C
hoos
e as
man
y or
as
few
as
you
like)
3.
W
hat a
re th
e ch
arac
teris
tics
/ qua
litie
s th
at m
ake
thes
e la
ndsc
apes
trul
y ou
tsta
ndin
g?
4.
Wha
t cha
nges
or m
odifi
catio
n w
ould
deg
rade
thes
e ou
tsta
ndin
g na
tura
l lan
dsca
pes?
Intercept & Key Informant Interview
01268-014 rdl 29-10-02 rdl Stage 1 Report Page 13
RESPONDENTS DETAILS Please could you provide the following information: Gender Male
Female
Age Under 20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 Over 60
Ethnicity European NZ Maori Polynesian Asian Other Occupation: __________________________________
Where Do You Live? ___________________________
(Suburb/Town/Area)
How Long Have You Lived in the Auckland Region? ________ NOTE:
This information will only be used for Analysis.
You will not be identified individually.
Inte
rcep
t & K
ey In
form
ant I
nter
view
0126
8-01
4 rdl
29-1
0-02
rdl
Stag
e 1 R
epor
t P
age 1
4
RE
SP
ON
DE
NT
NO
. S
OR
T C
oast
Est
uary
H
ill
Lo
wla
nd
C
ombi
ned
MO
ST
LEA
ST
OPT
ION
A
Inte
rcep
t & K
ey In
form
ant I
nter
view
0126
8-01
4 rdl
29-1
0-02
rdl
Stag
e 1 R
epor
t P
age 1
5
RE
SP
ON
DE
NT
NO
.
S
OR
T C
oast
E
stua
ry
H
ill
Low
land
C
ombi
ned
14
43
34
23
12
OPT
ION
B
01268-014 rdl 29-10-02 rdl Stage 1 Report Page 16
Appendix 5 Iconic Landscapes : Research Brief Background The purpose of the Auckland Regional Landscape Assessment Study (ARLAS) is to identify the outstanding natural landscapes of the Auckland Region. It will address the requirements of the RMA Section 6(b). The main part of the study comprises a Q Sort survey of public and key informant views. This needs to be complemented by a summary review of ‘iconic’ landscapes that feature within literature and the arts. This brief describes the requirements of this survey review. Aim To determine landscapes within the Auckland Region that have been recognised within literature and the arts as being particularly notable for their natural qualities and that may be described as ‘outstanding’. Scope The review is to include relevant landscape references in recognised literature – both prose and poetry, in painting and sculpture, music, photography when it has been acknowledged as being a significant example of cultural values, and related types of cultural production. The review should identify: Location Date and author / artist Particular landscape qualities highlighted in the work.
The survey should include both urban and rural locations, provided they can be described as ‘outstanding’ and ‘natural’ (e.g. including the volcanic cones). Selection The study should focus upon secondary sources as much as possible – anthologies, exhibition / collection catalogues, song books / record catalogues etc. There is no limit upon time span: the inventory can include pre-European landscapes identified in published Maori historical sources, early settlers’ accounts, colonial and Victorian accounts, and 20th century sources. Programme Allow 10-12 days for primary research, and 5 days to draft a summary report. Total 17 days. Output A draft report that includes: Inventory of landscapes that have been recognised as outstanding; Description of location, plotted on a map of the region;
01268-014 rdl 29-10-02 rdl Stage 1 Report Page 17
Selected examples of prose or poetry which distil the particular qualities of well recognised landscapes (might include music titles, words of songs, etc).
Report Format Written description of key iconic landscapes, incorporating illustrative quotes etc, tabular inventory of locations and scenes, reference map. Summary The key requirement is to identify well recognised ‘iconic’ landscapes, and to provide some compelling and evocative evidence of their claim to be outstanding. Reporting To John Goodwin. Completion Date End January 2003.
01268-014 rdl 29-10-02 rdl Stage 1 Report Page 18
Appendix 6 Work Programme
Stage 2 – Q-Sort Survey and Analysis
2.1 Preparation 4 Nov Nov 22
2.1.1 Preparation of 1 set of prints 4 Nov 11 Nov
2.1.2 Preparation of Response Sheets 4 Nov 11 Nov
2.1.3 Undertake Pilot Survey 11 Nov 15 Nov
2.1.4 Identify Sites for Intercept Survey 11 Nov 15 Nov
2.1.5 Identify key Informants 11 Nov 15 Nov
2.1.6 Produce 2 additional sets of photos 18 Nov 22 Nov
2.1.7 Organise key informant Interview dates 18 Nov 22 Nov
2.1.8 Review with client 18 Nov 22 Nov
2.2 Survey 25 Nov 31 Jan
2.2.1 Undertake initial key informant interviews (40) 25 Nov 13 Dec
2.2.2 Undertake initial intercept interviews (60) 25 Nov 13 Dec
2.2.3 Preliminary Analysis 16 Dec 20 Dec
2.2.4 Complete key informant interviews (max 150) 6 Jan Jan
2.2.5 Complete Intercept interviews (max 250) 6 Jan 31 Jan
2.3 Data Entry & Analysis/Interpretation 3 Feb 7 March
2.3.1 Data Entry 3 Feb 7 Feb
2.3.2 Analysis 10 Feb 13 Feb
2.3.3 Factor Interpretation 16 Feb 28 Feb
2.3.4 Summary Interpretation 3 March 7 March
2.3.5 Review with client 3 March 7 March
2.4 Reporting 3 March 28 March
2.4.1 Draft Report 3 March 14 March
2.4.2 Client Review 17 March 21 March
2.4.3 Final Report 24 March 28 March
1
Auckland Regional Landscape Assessment for
Auckland Regional Council
Stage Two
Public Perceptions of Outstanding Natural Landscapes in the Auckland Region
John R Fairweather AERU, Lincoln University
and
Simon R Swaffield
Environment Society and Design Division, Lincoln University
In association with Boffa Miskell Limited and Stephen Brown Landscape Architects
May, 2003
Ph.: O3 325-2811
Emails: [email protected] [email protected]
2
Contents
LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................................... 3 LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................... 5 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 6 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION: RESEARCH OBJECTIVE AND APPROACH................................ 7 CHAPTER 2 USE OF Q METHOD WITH PHOTOGRAPHS......................................................... 9
2.1 Q Method .................................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Photograph Selection ................................................................................................ 10 2.3 Conduct of the Interviews......................................................................................... 10 2.4 Sample Size and Characteristics ............................................................................... 11 2.5 Factor Analysis ......................................................................................................... 12
CHAPTER 3 RESULTS............................................................................................................ 13 3.1 Factor Analysis Results............................................................................................. 13 3.2 The Number of “Truly Outstanding Natural Landscapes” ....................................... 14 3.3 Factor Description for each Land Type Q Sort......................................................... 15
CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ........................................................................ 50 4.1 Distinctive Viewpoints.............................................................................................. 50 4.2 Consistency between Factors on a Particular Land Type. ........................................ 50 4.3 Summary of Viewpoints of ‘Truly Outstanding Natural Landscapes’ ..................... 50 4.4 Consistencies across Different Land Types: Wild Nature and Cultured Nature ...... 51 4.5 Relationship to Previous Studies .............................................................................. 52 4.6 Implications for Stage 3 of the Project ..................................................................... 53 4.7 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 53
REFERENCES............................................................................................................................. 55 APPENDIX 1 COMMENTS ON PHOTOGRAPHS.......................................................................... 56 APPENDIX 2 Q SORT RECORDING SHEET............................................................................... 83 APPENDIX 3 FACTORS BY ETHNICITY FOR EACH LANDFORM QSORT................................... 85 APPENDIX 4 LOCATIONS OF PHOTOGRAPHS ........................................................................... 86
3
List of Tables
Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of the Sample............................................................... 12 Table 2: Core Results for each Landform................................................................................. 13 Table 3: Thresholds for ‘Truly Outstanding Natural Landscapes’ (Average for all respondents
in each Factor.................................................................................................................... 14 Table 4: Sum of Scores for Each Landform in the Combined Q sort....................................... 47
4
List of Figures Figure 1 Coastal Factor 1.......................................................................................................... 18 Figure 2 Coastal Factor 2.......................................................................................................... 20 Figure 3 Outstanding Natural Landscapes in Coastal Land Type ............................................ 22 Figure 4 Estuary and Harbour Factor 1..................................................................................... 24 Figure 5 Estuary and Harbour Factor 2..................................................................................... 26 Figure 6 Outstanding Natural Landscapes in Estuary and Harbour Land Type ....................... 28 Figure 7 Lowlands Factor 1 ...................................................................................................... 30 Figure 8 Lowlands Factor 2 ...................................................................................................... 32 Figure 9 Outstanding Natural Landscapes in Lowlands Land Type......................................... 34 Figure 10 Hills Factor 1 ............................................................................................................ 36 Figure 11 Hills Factor 2 ............................................................................................................ 38 Figure 12 Hills Factor 3 ............................................................................................................ 40 Figure 13 Outstanding Natural Landscapes in Hills Land Type............................................... 42 Figure 14 Combined Factor 1 ................................................................................................... 44 Figure 15 Combined Factor 2 ................................................................................................... 46 Figure 16 Outstanding Natural Landscapes in Combined Land Type...................................... 49
5
Acknowledgements We acknowledge the assistance of Auckland Regional Council staff, in particular Louise Gobby, and a number of field workers employed by Boffa Miskel over the course of the project. Rachel de Lambert and John Goodwin of Boffa Miskel and Steven Brown, landscape Architect, contributed the photographs and contributed to the interpretation of the results. Crystal Maslin provided expertise for the illustrations. We also acknowledge the contributions of the respondents to the survey.
6
Summary This research reports on how members of the public and some key informants defined outstanding natural landscapes in the Auckland region. A total of 219 respondents completed 229 responses to photographs presented in sets of 30 for coastal, estuary and harbour, lowland, and hills landscapes, plus a combined set with examples from all four types of landscape. Results show that there are two distinctive ways in which the public evaluates the qualities of natural landscapes in the Auckland Region. These are described in the report as ‘factors’ due to the method by which they were derived. The two factors are broadly consistent across the different landscapes in the region and account for a very large proportion of the responses. In the case of hill country landscapes, the evaluation is slightly more complex. Based on these factors, the report identifies the types of landscape that respondents describe as truly outstanding. The first factor characterises outstanding natural landscapes in terms of ‘wild nature’. This factor values natural landscape most highly when there is no evidence of human presence, modification or management. The landscapes that are selected as ‘truly outstanding’ are those which are closest to the pristine environments in the land types under consideration. The second factor also values many pristine environments, but in addition evaluates some types of modified environment as being outstanding natural landscapes. This represents a ‘cultured nature’ position in which the presence of humans undertaking recreational activity, or some forms of low intensity production within a landscape, is considered to be consistent with it being an outstanding natural landscape. The main indicator of this factor is that landscapes which include a picturesque mix of bush and extensive pastoral agriculture on hills and lowlands are highly valued, whilst relatively unmodified salt marsh and wetland are less highly valued (as being unattractive and somewhat inaccessible). Hence for Factor 2 ‘cultured nature’, not all pristine environments are recognised as having potential to be an outstanding natural landscape, whilst some partially modified landscapes are regarded as truly outstanding. When the photographs identified as truly outstanding by each factor in each type of landscape are combined, an overall pattern of public response can be identified, with a reasonably high degree of consensus about the characteristics of landscapes that warrant the designation of being ‘outstanding natural landscapes’. They include pristine and relatively unmodified coastal environments, estuaries and harbours; unmodified wetlands with standing water; lowland bush; and picturesque or open hill country that includes a significant proportion of bush or bush remnants, with minimal presence of human artefacts or buildings.
7
Chapter 1 Introduction: Research Objective and Approach
The Auckland Regional Council has responsibility under the Resource Management Act 1991 for the integrated and sustainable management of natural and physical resources, at a regional scale. The protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate development, subdivision and use is recognised in Section 6(b) as a matter of national importance. In order to help meet the requirements of Section 6(b), Auckland Regional Council has commissioned a landscape assessment to identify the natural landscapes within the Region which should be recognised as outstanding, and to describe the qualities and attributes that make them outstanding and that may be vulnerable to inappropriate development. Consideration of Section 6(b) matters in the Environment Court in recent years suggests that ‘outstanding’ natural landscapes should be reasonably self evident within the context in which they are being considered. In this report, we present the results of a public survey intended to identify how the Auckland regional community perceives outstanding natural landscapes. The objectives of the report are (1) to document, using a photographic method, how members of the public and some key informants perceive and define outstanding natural landscapes in the Auckland Region, and (2) to record the characteristics that they attribute to outstanding natural landscapes. The report is part a wider study, and will provide input into the expert delineation of outstanding natural landscapes at a regional level in Stage 3 of the overall project. Drawing on recent research experience in investigating perception of natural character in New Zealand (Fairweather and Swaffield, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003; Fairweather, 2002; Newton et al., 2002), we apply some well-developed techniques in qualitative research to assess public perception of outstanding natural landscapes. We have found that using photographs is particularly useful in landscape perception work. Photographs allow for the presentation of a variety of landscape settings and qualities in an efficient way, and respondents enjoy commenting on and working with them. The approach we have adopted in assessing outstanding natural landscapes is to use the Q method (Brown, 1980). This method provides stimuli such as photographs to respondents in such a way that they are free to express their own view on the topic of research. Typically, about 20 to 30 photographs are sorted in order from those which the respondent likes, approves or judges to have some quality, such as outstanding natural landscape, to those which they judge to least represent the nominated quality. The photographs are sorted into piles and receive a score corresponding to the pile. The scores are recorded, and quantitative analysis then identifies characteristic and distinctive ways of sorting the photographs, which are common to a number of respondents. These are called factors. While respondents are ordering the photographs, they are also interviewed, and asked to explain why they sort the items in the way that they do. These comments complement the scoring and are a vital way in which the thoughts and feelings of the respondent are recorded. They are used to interpret in detail the factors that are identified in the quantitative analysis. In
8
effect, the Q sort method is a way of using quantitative methods to assess qualitative judgements. Previous research (Fairweather 2002) has demonstrated that when a dozen or more people ‘load’ on a factor, then the factor stabilises, that is, however many more people may be interviewed, it is highly unlikely that the main characteristics of the factor will change. When the analysis has identified one or more stable factors, therefore, we can be confident that these ways of evaluating landscape are present in the wider community. Furthermore, if a consensus emerges across a number of stable factors about the relative value of particular landscapes or attributes, then we can be confident that this evaluation is well grounded in the community. What we cannot do is to predict precisely what proportion of the community will hold any particular view. This does not appear relevant to the requirements of Section 6(b), and has not been pursued in the research.
9
Chapter 2 Use of Q Method with Photographs
2.1 Q Method The Q sort distribution into which the respondent is asked to place the photographs is usually in the shape of the standard ‘bell shaped’ normal distribution (see Appendix 2). As there are only a few available spaces at the extremes of the distribution (i.e., the most or least outstanding), and more in the middle, this process requires the respondent to clearly discriminate between different landscapes, and to focus upon what they regard as an ‘outstanding natural landscape’. In order to undertake the quantitative analysis, scores are assigned to the photographs selected in such a way that the photographs at the two ends of the distribution receive high positive or negative scores, while the photographs towards the middle receive a low score. The middle column of photographs is given a zero score, representing a neutral judgement. The Q sorts are completed by a non-random sample of respondents within the regional population. Samples in Q sort are typically smaller than in public opinion surveys which use random samples, and often include between 20 and 60 people. In this study, for reasons that will become obvious, we have interviewed over 200 respondents. The methodology of Q sort aims to describe the range of distinctive ways (factors) of assessing a landscape within the regional community, as well as identifying where there is overlap or consensus between the factors. As a consequence, sampling is designed to tap into varied viewpoints, so that from a technical perspective, the sample needs to be diverse rather than strictly random or totally representative. Nonetheless, in this study, the sample of respondents does match the overall demographic and ethnic profile of the Auckland region reasonably well. The Q sorts of all respondents are factor analysed, a process by which similar Q sorts are identified statistically. The results are presented in a form that shows a typical Q sort for each factor. This represents the choices of the respondents that contributed to that factor. The purpose of the factor analysis is to identify the main ways that the items are Q sorted within the sample of respondents, and in nearly all studies these are limited in number, typically about one to five. The power of the Q method is that it provides a means to understand the underlying way that people think and feel about outstanding natural landscapes, and identifies distinctive groupings of landscapes that are regarded as outstanding. It is important not to confuse Q method with other studies that aim to make inferences about the views held by the population as a whole about particular landscape attributes (e.g., to determine how important statistically is the presence of water, or bush). For that type of research, the focus is on the quantitative characteristics of a random sample of responses. In Q method, quantitative and interpretive analysis is used to identify the qualitative characteristics of people’s responses. It does not address the question of how these may be distributed among the population.
10
2.2 Photograph Selection The environment in the Auckland region is particularly varied. In order to give respondents a practical sorting task it was necessary to present photographs separately for the different main types of landscape found in the region. The region was therefore divided into four broad categories of landscape, based upon underlying topography and land type: coastal, estuary and harbour, lowlands and hills. This approach has the advantage that it allows respondents to judge the qualities that may make a landscape outstanding against other similar types of landscape, without being unduly influenced by the relative scarcity of the underlying land type at a regional level. It is also important to find out how respondents evaluate contrasting types of landscape relative to each other. A fifth set of photographs was therefore prepared to represent the region as a whole, using some taken from each of the four separate sets. 30 photographs were selected from the separate land types to create a combined set that shows the diversity of landscape characteristics in the region as a whole. Hence, a total of 120 photographs were used to represent the range of landscapes in the Auckland region. The identification and selection of the range of photographs was undertaken by two expert landscape architects based upon the landscape character areas identified in the previous Auckland Regional Landscape Study (Brown, 1984), and upon their knowledge of changes to the landscape since 1984. The approach was to identify different landscape character units within the overall landscape types, and to select the 30 photographs which best represent the range of landscape characteristics of that land type across the region as a whole (The detailed method was described in the Stage 1 report). The survey was limited to non urban landscapes, reflecting the focus upon outstanding natural landscapes. The locations used in the survey, the land type category they were used to represent, and their distinctive characteristics are listed in the Appendices.
2.3 Conduct of the Interviews Intercept interviews were undertaken at ten locations in the main population centres around the Auckland Region during December 2002 and January 2003. These locations were Manukau, Otahuhu, Panmure, New Lynn, Pukekohe, Newmarket, Orewa, Henderson, Remuera, and the offices of the Department of Conservation, the Auckland Regional Council and the Auckland City Council. With the help of the Auckland Regional Council, sites were established in public streets, malls etc, where field interviewers could ask people passing by to co-operate and indicate their views on outstanding natural landscapes. At some sites a caravan was used for shelter and to promote the research. Tables and chairs were provided to make the sorting as comfortable as possible. In most cases, interviewers worked in pairs and worked from mid morning until mid or late afternoon. People were generally happy to co-operate when asked, provided they had some time to commit to the sorting process. Q sorts took from 15 to 45 minutes depending on the personality of the respondent and their interest in the subject. Most were completed in 15 to 20 minutes. Each respondent completed a Q sort for either one of the land types, or for the combined Q sort. The allocation of each set of photographs to respondents was random.
11
In addition to the intercept Q sorts, a small number of people with a range of special interests such as councillors, council staff (planners), government agencies (DoC, MfE), an iwi representative, conservation advocate, and developer were invited to act as key informants. Most of the key informants who were available completed two Q sorts and the associated interviews, including one of the land type Q sorts and the combined Q sort. There was a total of ten key informants in the overall sample and they completed a total of 18 Q sorts. For each interview, the 30 photographs from one of the land types were spread out on a table, and the respondent was asked to arrange the photographs into piles, in accordance with the format shown in Appendix 2. The instruction used was: “Please order these photographs from those which represent the most outstanding natural landscapes to those that least fit this description”. The distribution below shows how the Q sort was structured, and the scores assigned to each pile: No. in pile: 1 2 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 2 1 Score: -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Hence, photographs placed at the extreme ends (the most and least outstanding) were more heavily weighted when determining the factors that summarise the responses. Having ordered the photographs to distinguish between the most and least outstanding, respondents were asked to identify the threshold of what they regarded as “truly outstanding”. They were also asked to comment upon the reasons behind their choices by stating the characteristics or qualities that made those landscapes truly outstanding, and were asked about what changes or modifications would either degrade those outstanding landscapes or improve them. These comments were noted on the record sheet.
2.4 Sample Size and Characteristics Interviews were undertaken before and after Christmas 2002, and in the latter stages intercepts were targeted to ensure that the final sample provided a close match to the ethnicity of the overall population distribution for Auckland, as indicated by Statistics New Zealand census data for 2001. A total of 229 Q sorts was obtained from 218 respondents Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the final sample of 229 Q sorts. The table shows that, overall, the final sample is a reasonable match to the regional population. For ethnicity, European New Zealanders and ‘others’ are slightly over represented and Asian, Maori, and Polynesians are slightly under represented. The age groups correspond reasonably well taking into account that the study included only people above school age. The sample has a lower number in the youngest age category and slightly more in all the intermediate categories. Consequently, the sample under-represents those under 20 and slightly over-represents the young adult categories. The number for the average years lived in the Auckland region was 26 and this indicates good familiarity with the Auckland region. The average years lived was similar across all Q sorts. Gender is well matched overall. The combined Q sort had more women than men.
12
Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of the Sample
Coast Estuary Lowlands Hills Combined Avg. % Census 01
% Ethnicity European 34 24 24 27 44 31 67 63 Maori 4 4 4 5 6 5 10 11 Polynesian 4 4 4 3 4 4 8 13 Asian 5 4 4 4 5 4 10 13 Other 3 3 0 6 3 7 1
Subtotal 47 39 39 39 65 46 100 101
Age <20 3 6 6 6 7 6 13 30 20-30 9 10 6 12 15 10 22 15 30-40 11 8 8 5 14 9 20 17 40-50 8 4 5 6 12 7 15 14 50-60 11 6 8 5 9 8 17 11 >60 5 5 6 5 8 6 13 13
Subtotal 47 39 39 39 65 46 100 100 Average Years Lived In Auckland Region 30 25 25 24 24 26
-
Gender Male 21 22 19 17 22 20 44 48 Female 26 17 20 22 43 26 56 52
Subtotal 47 39 39 39 65 46 100 100
2.5 Factor Analysis On completion of the fieldwork, all Q sorts were coded and then factor analysed. The analysis used the PQ Method and applied Varimax rotation to identify factors with two or more significant loadings on the unrotated factor matrix (i.e., two or more respondents selected this way of ordering the photographs). (See Brown 1980, Fairweather 2002, Fairweather and Swaffield 2000 for details of factor analysis methods).
13
Chapter 3 Results
3.1 Factor Analysis Results Table 2 shows the core results for all the 229 Q sorts. For each Q sort there were either two or three factors identified (in the case of the Coastal Q sort, factor 3 had some respondents who loading negatively on it and these are considered as an additional factor). Some respondents do not load on any factors and these are known an ‘no loaders’ (NL). For all but three factors there were ten or more significant loaders, that is, respondents whose loading, or degree of association with the factor, was statistically significant. Analysis of previous studies (Fairweather, 2002) has shown that the characteristics of factors stabilise with ten or more significant loaders. Hence, all the factors may be regarded as both distinctive and stable factors, except for Coastal Factor 3 & 4 and Lowlands Factor 3. There were only two respondents loading on each of Coastal Factors 3 & 4, and only three respondents loading onto Lowlands Factor 3. These are therefore much less robust and little significance can be attributed to their detailed configuration.
Table 2: Core Results for each Landform
Land type Factor Total Loading
Usable Loading
Correlation between factors
No. of Q Sorts
1 2 3 4 NL % % 1 & 2 1 & 3 2 & 3 Coastal 47 22 17 (2) (2) 4 43 91 39 83 0.72 0.13 0.1 Estuary 39 21 17 1 38 97 38 97 0.55 Lowlands 39 25 10 (3) 1 38 97 35 90 0.2 0.1 0.6 Hills 39 14 11 10 4 35 90 35 90 0.5 0.6 0.24 Combined 65 42 21 2 63 97 63 97 0.55 Total 229 217 95 210 92 It is notable that, overall, 95 per cent of respondents loaded significantly on a factor. This compares with the more typical statistic of about 70-75 per cent. Hence, these results show that the factors identified account for nearly all the responses. Table 2 shows the total number of respondents loading on the factors for each Q sort and then shows the total usable number loading on each Q sort. Coastal Factors 1 and 2 account for 83 per cent of all responses to that Q sort, Estuary and Harbour Factors 1 and 2 account for 97 per cent, Lowlands Factors 1 and 2 account for 90 per cent, Hills Factors 1, 2 and 3 account for 90 per cent and Combined Factors 1 and 2 account for 97 per cent. These are unusually high loadings for a Q sort survey, and this gives us confidence that the survey has identified key factors which express the prevailing views of the population.
14
Table 3 also shows the correlation coefficients between each factor and this is a measure of the degree of similarity of the factors being compared. Some are quite similar, for example, Coastal Factors 1 and 2, and some are distinct, for example, Lowland Factors 1 and 3. Because of the very high percentage of respondents loading on the main factors, and the very small numbers on the minor factors, the minor factors are not analysed in detail in the following pages. Coastal factor 3 & 4 and Lowland factor 3 are therefore noted but not examined further.
3.2 The Number of “Truly Outstanding Natural Landscapes” When they had completed the Q sort, respondents were asked to indicate to the interviewer the place in the distribution that formed a cut off point between those photographs that were truly outstanding natural landscapes and those that were not. The average number of photographs showing a ‘truly outstanding landscape’ was not the same for each land type category or factor. Table 3 shows the data and for the Coastal land type the average was 11 in both factors. For Estuary and Harbour, nine in Factor 1 and seven in Factor 2. In the Lowlands it was ten and nine, Hills ten, eight, and nine respectively, and Combined 12 and 12.
Table 3: Thresholds for ‘Truly Outstanding Natural Landscapes’ (Average for all respondents in each Factor
Landform Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Basis for analysis Coastal 11 11 9 Estuary 9 7 6 Lowland 10 9 9 Hills 10 8 9 9 Combined 12 12 13
The overall average of these data is ten but this clearly disguises some significant variation. Furthermore, the average of all respondents on each factor does not always coincide with a clear threshold between columns, which is practically necessary in order to identify the key photographs for each land type in the factor distributions (the columns in the distribution correspond to 1, 2, 3, 9, and 13, which are the only practical thresholds for analysis). We have therefore taken the cut off point for truly outstanding to include the top nine photographs (4 columns) in coastal, lowlands and hills, top six photographs (3 columns) in estuary and harbour, and top 13 photographs (5 columns) in the combined Q sort. This averaged cut off slightly under-represents the number of landscapes identified as truly outstanding in the coastal and estuary land types, and slightly over-represents the number in the combined Q sort. Nevertheless, it appears to correspond well with identifiable thresholds in landscape characteristics in the land types in question, and is also consistent with the comments and overall characterisation of the factors. In the detailed factor descriptions that follow, we present figures which illustrate both the full distributions of photographs for each factor (from most to least outstanding), and a figure that shows only the ‘truly outstanding’ landscapes in each land type. In the summary of ‘truly
15
outstanding’ landscapes for that landform we have combined the factors on a single page, so that it is possible to identify the consensus landscapes across factors that are ‘truly outstanding’. It is this final set of photographs which provides the main basis for deriving attributes of outstanding landscapes, These can be subsequently applied in field analysis and delineation of landscapes ‘on the ground’.
3.3 Factor Description for each Land Type Q Sort The results are presented in the following order. First, we provide a verbal description of the photographs identified as representing the truly outstanding natural landscapes for each land type, as well as the bottom six photographs, which are clearly the inverse, i.e., not outstanding or natural. This provides an introductory objective account of the results. Second, the photographs for each factor are presented as a figure that shows the Q sort distribution of the factor, with a colour coding system to indicate some additional information about the factor. Note that the single photograph rated by the factor as most outstanding natural landscape is offset to fit the page. Third, the verbatim comments by respondents on the photographs, which are reported in Appendix 1, are collated into a summary of key themes. The comments are grouped into three categories: elements, characteristics and feelings. In some cases these distinctions overlap. Attention was given to comments about the most outstanding natural landscapes and the least outstanding natural landscapes rather than the comments about what would degrade or improve the landscape in the photograph. These latter comments often repeated what had already been recorded. Finally, the photographs identified as truly outstanding in each of the land types are presented, with a summary account of their qualities. For each land type we present a single figure which includes all the photographs identified as truly outstanding natural landscapes by all the factors in that land type. The top of the figure shows the landscapes regarded as truly outstanding by all the factors on that land type, and the bottom of the figure shows the landscapes identified as truly outstanding by each factor where they are distinctive. In the figures for the individual factors the following colour coding conventions apply. A photograph whose location in a factor distribution is statistically significantly different to its location in other factor distributions in that land type is identified with a red background. This indicates that the evaluation of these photographs by respondents is particularly distinctive to the factor in question. It will be rated much higher or lower than in other factors, and this alerts us to the probability that there is something about the landscape being portrayed in the photograph which is critical to the overall factor evaluation. For the Q sorts with three factors it is also possible to identify those photographs that have a different score across the three factors (that is they are located in a different column in each factor), but which are not statistically significant in the overall factor analysis. These photographs are identified with a yellow background. This indicates that the photograph shifts location in different factors by several columns. Its attributes are not likely to be critical to the characterisation of the overall factor, but may certainly be indicative of the distinctive values of that factor, and may be sufficient to include or exclude a photograph from the ‘truly outstanding’ part of the distribution.
16
There are also consensus photographs upon which all the respondents undertaking Q sorts in a particular land type agree. They are identified by a black hatched background. This indicates the photograph is placed in the same place in all the factor distributions for that land type. If this is within the ‘truly outstanding’ part of the distribution, then the landscape attributes and qualities expressed in the photograph are clearly regarded as outstanding by all factors. The unmarked (i.e., white edged) photographs are those whose evaluation is not critical or distinctive to a particular factor, nor entirely consensus. They may for example shift between two adjacent columns in the different factors in a particular Q sort. Finally, a heavy black line indicates the threshold for landscapes identified as “truly outstanding” in the Q sort, as discussed above. Landscapes above that line are identified in that factor as truly outstanding natural landscapes. These are the types of landscapes that appear to warrant consideration for protection under section 6 (b) of the RMA and are combined in the ‘Truly Outstanding Landscape’ figures for each factor. However it is also important to note that in some land types, public perceptions of what constitutes an outstanding natural landscape are not entirely consistent with Environment Court determinations of what constitutes ‘natural’. This issue is discussed in the concluding section, and will need to be addressed in Stage 3.
17
Coastal Factor One (See figure 1) Top 9 “Truly Outstanding”: Clean, open, wide, sandy beaches backed by cliffs and/or rocky shoreline, generally accessible; adjoining land is covered by bush, grass/scrub (not pasture) with minimal evidence of human habitation or artefacts. Bottom 6 “Least Outstanding”: Beaches or rocky shoreline with buildings to edge of land and/or coastal structures and defences. Key Themes from the interviews: Outstanding natural landscapes Not outstanding natural landscapes Elements Natural beauty.
Native vegetation. Natural processes, forms. Steep and rugged. Variety.
Residential development, roads, housing. Exotic vegetation. Power lines. Unnatural structures, hard surfaces. Development too close to shore. Human intervention. Removal of vegetation.
Character Untouched, uncorrupted by man, no man made development. Clean, unpolluted, clean water. Remoteness, openness. Grandeur, spectacular.
Intensive recreation. Commerce. Modified by coastal defences.
Feelings Excitement, drama Refreshing. Pleasant place.
Figure 1 Coastal Factor 1
18
19
Coastal Factor Two (see Figure 2) Top 9 “Truly Outstanding”: Clean, open beaches backed by dune systems, or backed by cliffs or rocky shorelines. Adjoining land covered by pasture with some native trees and bush, and minimal evidence of human artefacts. Bottom 6 “Least Outstanding”: Largely the same as Factor 1. Buildings adjoining either sandy beaches or rocky shores. Key Themes from the interviews: Outstanding natural landscapes Not outstanding natural landscapes Elements Natural.
No buildings, people, houses. White sand. Dune grass (for protection). Good vegetation growth. Clear water, dynamic water. Natural vegetation.
Development. Houses too close. Power lines. Urbanisation. Too many elements. Lack vegetation.
Character Rugged (slightly) steep. Untouched, quiet. Colours, textures. Distinctive. Uninhabited. Diversity. Integration of houses. Easy access.
Artificial. Not distinctive. Untidy, scrappy. Not permanent. Contrived. Populated.
Feelings Free to roam. Nice to visit. Peaceful, serene. Dramatic atmosphere. Summer holidays.
Difficult to walk, poor access.
Figure 2 Coastal Factor 2
20
21
Summary for the Coast Q Sort Factors Factors 1 and 2 are similar with a correlation of 0.72. They are similar in that they both identify undeveloped coastline with beaches and or cliffs and rocks as representing outstanding natural landscapes. They identify developed coastline as representing least outstanding natural landscapes. The photographs indicate that factor 1 prefers darker sand beaches as found on the West Coast, while factor 2 prefers white sand beaches with marram grass as found on the East Coast. (Photographs 3, 6 and 21 showing these sandy beaches are nearer to neutral for factor 1). Factor 1 dislikes photographs 11, 16 and 22 all showing rocky beaches with some houses, and these are rated lower than in Factor 2. Factor 2 accepts a greater degree of human intervention into the outstanding natural landscape, for example as pasture and marram grass, but not prominent or visible houses. The comments in both factors emphasise pure nature but there is slightly more emphasis on this by factor 1, who made reference to attributes such as ‘untouched’, ‘uncorrupted by man’ etc. and made more frequent reference to native vegetation. Generally, both factors see man made intervention as an indication that the qualities that make an outstanding natural landscapes have been compromised. The Coastal ‘truly outstanding natural landscapes’ are shown in Figure 3. The key qualities may be summarised as: Undeveloped coastline framed by medium to high relief, with bush cover or rough pasture and only very low levels of human modification that are clearly visually subservient to the overall setting.
22
Figure 3 Outstanding Natural Landscapes in Coastal Land Type
Factor 1 Factor 2
23
Estuary and Harbour Factor 1 (see Figure 4) Top 6 “Truly Outstanding”: A range of undeveloped shorelines, including beaches and dunes, salt marsh, and rocky shoreline backed by low hills. The presence of remnant or regenerating bush and mangrove, tall trees and shrubs with some pasture. An undeveloped land edge. Bottom 6 “Least Outstanding”: Hard edges, built structures. Mudflats. Houses to water edge or buildings over water. Themes from the interviews: Outstanding natural landscapes Not outstanding natural landscapes Elements Regenerating bush, re-growth,
Indigenous vegetation. No development, houses etc, not artificial things, few people. Clear water. Abundant vegetation. Good habitat. Combination of vegetation, Complexity of environment.
Too much activity. Pollution. Houses, power cables. Inappropriate development, development. Altered, artificial, man made. Any construction.
Character Beautiful. Quiet. Clean and green, healthy, clean and tidy. Natural Distinctive.
Destroyed habitat. Not peaceful. Dirty.
Feelings Appealing to be in., Peaceful, good vibes. Identity as Kiwi. Remote.
Figure 4 Estuary and Harbour Factor 1
24
25
Estuary and Harbour Factor 2 (see Figure 5) Top 6 “Truly Outstanding”: Undeveloped shorelines, including beaches and dunes backed by low hills. The presence of remnant or regenerating bush, tall trees and shrubs with some pasture. An undeveloped land edge, with only minimal evidence of human presence. Bottom 6 “Least Outstanding: Mangrove, mudflats. Rocky shore. Poor access. Themes from the interviews: Outstanding natural landscapes Not outstanding natural landscapes Elements Sandy shores.
(Lack of buildings, structures). More natural, not interfered with, natural look. Combinations of vegetation and water. Shades of green, colour contrasts.
Houses too close to shore. Unnatural, man made structures. Development (rock, buildings, factories, houses). Sludgy, muddy. Factories leading to pollution. Dirty. Mangroves.
Character Typical of New Zealand. Serene and peaceful. Variety of elements. Brighter photographs. Clean and tidy.
Dull looking. Rocks unpleasant to walk on.
Feelings Isolation. Enjoyable to visit.
Figure 5 Estuary and Harbour Factor 2
26
27
Summary for the Estuary and Harbour Q Sort The Estuary and Harbour Q sort has two distinct factors with a correlation of only 0.55. However, they have some similarities in what they identify as outstanding natural landscapes. Both factors agree that photograph 22 (showing low hills, bush and pasture) best represents outstanding natural landscapes, and both give similar scores to 26 and 8 which are consensus photographs (showing beach backed by dunes and tall vegetation). In all, they share five of the top six photographs. These photographs show variety of settings, native and exotic vegetation, sand and some pasture. There is a distant view of boats in one highlighted photograph. The main difference between the factors at the upper end is that Factor 1 includes salt marsh backed by taller vegetation as truly outstanding, whereas Factor 2 omits salt marsh. Factor 2 also includes more developed shoreline higher up its Q sort distribution than does Factor 1. Greater contrast occurs at the other end of the array of photographs. Factor 1 rates hard edged shoreline and built structures as very low in terms of outstanding natural landscapes while Factor 2 downgrades mangroves and mudflats but is more neutral about developed shoreline. The comments show both factors emphasise lack of man made structures and the clean, green, tidy characteristics. Their comments on the least outstanding natural landscapes show that factor 1 emphasises development but factor 2 emphasises apparently dirty mangroves and tidal march flats. The commonalties among the two factors are photographs 22, 26 and 8. These show well-vegetated land in an apparently undisturbed state. The Harbour and Estuary ‘truly outstanding natural landscapes’ are shown in Figure 6. They may be summarised as: Open water, intertidal margins and shoreline which is highly natural backed by low to medium relief with significant areas of tall vegetation, bush and pasture, and only very low levels of human modification that are clearly visually subservient to the overall setting.
28
Figure 6 Outstanding Natural Landscapes in Estuary and Harbour Land Type
Factor 1 Factor 2
29
Lowlands Factor 1 (see figure 7) Top 9 “Truly Outstanding”: Shows wetland, with open water and no evidence of human artefacts but includes some pasture-covered hills and some bush remnants. Bottom 6 “Least Outstanding”: Improved pasture, buildings. Cultivation, drains, fences. Key themes from the interviews: Outstanding natural landscapes Not outstanding natural landscapes Elements Good habitats.
Textures and colours. Native vegetation, forest. (No exotics). (No built elements). Water. Rolling hillsides. Close to original. Natural cycles.
Modification. Human activity. Man made structures, residential development. Human patterns. Cultivation, ploughing, farming. Exotics.
Character Natural, unmodified, no structures, original, untouched. Variation, combinations. Unspoilt. Original look.
Lack of variety. No colour. Denuded vegetation. Spartan. Artificial. Indistinct.
Feelings Need to protect coastal margins. Boring.
Figure 7 Lowlands Factor 1
30
31
Lowland Factor 2 (see figure 8) Top 9 “Truly Outstanding”: Open rolling country, clean pasture, well vegetated wetlands, lakes, some bush remnants or isolated trees. Bottom 6 “Least Outstanding”: Wet land or marshy ground; cropping land, drains, rough pasture. Themes from the interviews: Outstanding natural landscapes Not outstanding natural landscapes Elements Water, clear water.
Water and land. Variety of elements, versatile. Colour contrast, nice colours. Hills. Trees. Pasture animals. Vista, outlook, scenic shots, water view. Native vegetation.
Dry looking plants. Drained. Factories. Water not clear; dirty water. Mud. Scrub (too much), Brown.
Character Clean and green image, clean and unspoilt. Natural, untouched nature, natural looking. Green. Uncluttered, tidy, openness. Different shades of colour. Patterns.
Brown. Human intervention, development. Brown, looks like pollution. Dead looking, dying, dry looking. Messy vegetation, untidy, no order. Unattractive mud, muddy and dirty. Not well maintained, poorly managed, abandoned. Damaged, rotten. Not natural. Mucky.
Feelings
Figure 8 Lowlands Factor 2
32
33
Summary for the Lowlands Q Sort Factor 1 and 2 are dissimilar with a correlation of 0.2. Factor 1 identifies wetland and open water as the main indicator of outstanding natural landscapes. Photographs showing commercial activity, houses on farm land or intensively managed farm land are the least outstanding natural landscapes. Factor 2 favours hills, pasture and water with only some bush or trees. Lowest ranked are mangrove or well-covered land, cropping, drains or rough pasture. The comments show that factor 1 emphasises the natural and unmodified landscapes along with native vegetation which in the lowland largely comprises wetland. Factor 2 also emphasises nature but mentions colours and the views, thus illustrating a pastoral preference which includes human use of the landscape for farming. It does not regard wetland as outstanding. The consensus photographs are few and located in the middle of the arrays. The pure nature viewpoint of factor 1 is distinctive, sharing little with the acceptance of views showing production as demonstrated by factor 2. Only photograph 2, showing water, pasture and bush, is rated among the top six by both factors. The Lowland ‘truly outstanding natural landscapes’ are shown in Figure 9. They may be characterised as: Unmodified wetlands with areas of open water and well vegetated margins, and, open rolling pastoral landscape with lakes or watercourses, remnant bush and very low density of settlement.
34
Figure 9 Outstanding Natural Landscapes in Lowlands Land Type
Factor 1 Factor 2
35
Hills Factor 1 (see Figure 10) Top 9 “Truly Outstanding”: Higher relief hill country with either bush cover or bush with some pasture. Water views. Bottom 6 “Least Outstanding”: Cropping or intensive pasture, houses. Themes from the interviews Outstanding natural landscapes Not outstanding natural landscapes Elements Trees down to water.
Water and land. Native bush, trees (no clearing). No human elements. Green. Water, sea.
Farm land. (No water). Housing. Concrete. Development.
Character Natural, pure. Untouched, undisturbed, unspoiled, pristine. Not man made. Serene, magical. Vistas, sea views. Diversity, combinations. Rugged hills.
Not authentic. Dead, dull. Not accessible. Barriers (fences).
Feelings Smell the sea.
Figure 10 Hills Factor 1
36
37
Hills Factor 2 (see Figure 11) Top 9 “Truly Outstanding”: Higher relief, pasture and some bush, views of water, intensive pasture and cropping. No fences. Bottom 6 “Least Outstanding”: Rough pasture and scrub, houses, fences. Themes from the interviews: Outstanding natural landscapes Not outstanding natural landscapes Elements (No houses).
Sea, water. Farms and livestock, countryside. Trees, vegetation. Pasture. Forestry. Native bush (1 mention only).
Man made structure, human intervention.
Character Vistas. Combination (of hill, forest, water), contrasts (water, land). Distinctive. Undisturbed. Balance. Natural. Smooth contour, rolling.
Cluttered, mixed, scrappy, untidy, scraggy, weedy, not well managed. Brown, dull, grass dying.
Feelings
Figure 11 Hills Factor 2
38
39
Hills Factor 3 (see Figure 12) Top 9 “Truly Outstanding”: Bush and tall trees, mixed pasture and bush. Some fencing, hedges and houses, water views. Bottom 6 “Least Outstanding”: Cropping, open pasture, forestry. Themes from the interviews: Outstanding natural landscapes Not outstanding natural landscapes Elements Water views, vistas, open view.
Land and water. Trees to water. (No erosion). Wooded backdrop. Preserved trees, ridgeline. Hills. Pastoral landscape. Trees, not necessary native. (No man made structures). Native bush. Bush clad hills.
Character Diversity, combination (of bush, water, hills), mixture. Original, pure, most natural, natural. (Not barren), forested. Humans in harmony, sympathetic housing. Nice vista. Well managed. Interesting patterns. Ruggedness.
Feelings Relaxing
Figure 12 Hills Factor 3
40
41
Summary for the Hills Q Sort Factors 1 and 2 have some similarity with a correlation of 0.5, as do factors 1 and 3 with a correlation of 0.6. Factors 2 and 3 are only slightly similar with a correlation of 0.24. All three factors associate outstanding natural landscapes with higher relief. Factor 1 rates bush, and bush with pasture as outstanding natural landscapes while intensive agriculture, houses on farm land and pasture as least outstanding natural landscapes. Factor 2 rates as outstanding natural landscapes, mixed pasture and some bush. It accepts pastoral land use as being compatible with outstanding landscape, even relatively intensive use, but does not accept the presence of houses. Factor 3 is similar to factor 1 but has photographs with houses and sheep in a higher position and, at the other end of the array, selects out the one photograph of the Pinus radiata plantation as among the least outstanding natural landscapes. Comments show that factor 1 and factor 3 emphasise absence of man made structures, and the presence of trees and water views. The former adds the unspoilt and pristine characteristics, while the latter adds living in harmony, consistent with having some photographs in the top of the array showing signs of human activity. Factor 2 comments are broadly similar to factors 1 and 3 but include more intense farming and the countryside. The consensus photographs are well spread through the arrays. Photograph 15 is uniformly assessed as an outstanding natural landscape. It shows a mixture of pasture and bush on hills with high relief, and a distant view of water. Photograph 28 is highly rated as outstanding natural landscape for factors 1 and 3 but its complete coverage in bush reduces its value to factor 2. The differences between these factors are subtle. They all favour high relief with some proximity to water. Factors 1 and 3 prefer tall trees with some pasture. Factor 1 favours native bush, while factor 2 accepts deciduous trees. Factor 2 also prefers a more production mix of pasture and bush remnants. The Hill Country ‘truly outstanding natural landscapes’ are shown in Figure 13. They may be characterised as: Relatively high relief with significant areas of maturing native vegetation interspersed with rough pasture and extensive open views. Landscape structure and vegetation patterns are visually diverse, and clearly express the underlying geology, landform and natural drainage. A very low density of settlement that is visually highly integrated into the overall setting.
Figure 13 Outstanding Natural Landscapes in Hills Land Type
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
43
Combined Factor 1 (see Figure 14) Top 13 “Truly Outstanding: Coastal, estuary and wetland, native vegetation, no pasture land, total absence of human artefacts. Bottom 6 “Least Outstanding”: Cropping and intensive pasture, human artefacts, fences, cultivation. Themes from the interviews: Outstanding natural landscapes Not outstanding natural landscapes Elements Trees to water.
Combinations of bush, water, beaches, vegetation, rocks. Contrast colour, vegetation Water.
Lack of trees. Polluted ware. Too much development, human impact, commerce, obtrusive development. Modified, fences, houses, agriculture, drained wetland, monoculture.
Character No man made influences, houses, Wilderness, untouched, natural, unmodified, undisturbed, pristine, isolated. Clean. No people. Recreation. Attractive. Drama, interesting, dynamic. Represents New Zealand, pre human New Zealand, distinctive, typical of New Zealand, rarity. Peaceful.
Ecosystem crumbling. Artificial, not natural. Dirty. Not distinctive.
Feelings Solitude, isolation. Spiritual. Sense of place. Connotation of holidays, happy memories.
Figure 14 Combined Factor 1
44
45
Combined Factor 2 (see Figure 15) Top 13 “Truly Outstanding”: Coastal bush, mixed pasture and bush, wetland. Bottom 6 “Least Outstanding: Mudflats, wharf, buildings on to beach, drained pasture, houses in bush. Themes from the interviews: Outstanding natural landscapes Not outstanding natural landscapes Elements Combination of elements.
Trees. Limited signs of development. Natural farmland, natural. Native vegetation. Water, sea view.
Too much development. Houses next to beach. Mudflats and sand. Lack of trees. Industrial development next to water. Power lines. Dead vegetation.
Character Undisturbed. Tranquil, still. Nice scenery. Clean water. Natural. Active landscape. Versatile.
Boring. Rotten. Not natural. Messy looking. Dull looking. Not good for swimming, can’t walk around it. Poorly maintained
Feelings Boring
Figure 15 Combined Factor 2
46
47
Summary for the Combined Q Sort Factor 1 and 2 are similar with a correlation of 0.55. In the top photographs for Factor 1 the main characteristics are coast, water, wetland and native vegetation with only a small proportion of pasture. Among the least outstanding natural landscapes are extensive areas of pasture, a structure in the sea, fences and cultivation. The top photographs for Factor 2 includes coast, bush and open pasture with bush remnants, and the bottom six include mudflats and mangroves and a bush covered hill with houses. Comments show that Factor 1 emphasises pristine environments with visually interesting combinations of trees, water and vegetation with an absence of man made influences and a strong sense of solitude, that evoke strong feelings of NZ identity. Factor 2 also emphasises interesting combinations of trees, water and vegetation but includes farm land. There is less emphasis on pristine environments and more on scenic qualities. Table 4 shows the different emphasis placed by each of the Combined Q sort factors upon the different land types. It is derived by assigning the Q sort score (used in the factor analysis) to each photograph in the Q sort and summing for each landform. The results show that Combined Factor 1 emphasises Coastal and Estuary and Harbour as outstanding natural landscapes within the combined Q sort, while Combined Factor 2 emphasises Lowland and Hills as outstanding natural landscapes
Table 4: Sum of Scores for Each Landform in the Combined Q sort Coastal Estuary Lowland Hills Factor 1 12 3 -11 -4 Factor 2 -4 -5 3 6 The truly outstanding landscapes that are common between the combined factors include examples of most kinds of unmodified landscape in the region (Figure 16). They include coastline backed with cliffs and/or bush-covered hills, coastline with beaches, dunes and open hills with pasture. They include estuaries and harbour shorelines with bush or other tall vegetation, hill country with mixed bush and pasture and sea views, and well vegetated lowland wetlands. The difference between the truly outstanding landscapes in the two factors in the combined Q sort are that Factor 1 features the west coast beaches and rocky estuary, while Factor 2 features inland rolling hills and mixed pasture and bush. As noted above, Factor 1 appears therefore to favour more unmodified ‘wild’ natural landscapes, while Factor 2 favours a more ‘cultured’, Arcadian mix of pasture and bush. The significance of this combined Q sort analysis is that it shows that landscapes in all four land types are valued by different parts of the regional community, but that not everyone places the same emphasis upon any particular land type. Everyone recognises the special qualities of a range of unmodified or little modified Coastal, Estuary and Harbour, Hill and Lowland landscapes that feature water and tall vegetation. Part of the community places greater emphasis upon Coastal and Estuary and Harbour landscapes, the other part emphasises
48
inland Hill country and Lowland landscapes. All appear to warrant consideration under the section 6(b) of the RMA.
49
Figure 16 Outstanding Natural Landscapes in Combined Land Type
Factor 1 Factor 2
50
Chapter 4 Discussion and Conclusion
4.1 Distinctive Viewpoints The survey of 219 respondents providing 229 Q sorts has identified a limited number of distinctive evaluations of the outstanding natural landscapes of the Auckland Region. There are two dominant factors associated with each of the coastal, estuary and harbour, and lowland land types, and three factors associated with the hills land type. These factors account for an unusually high proportion of the total number of respondents interviewed (Coastal 83%, Estuary 97%, Lowland 87%, Hills 90%). This means that we can be confident that the factors take into account nearly all of the views of people interviewed. The identification of two or more factors in each of the land types indicates that there are some differences in emphasis in the way people in the community evaluate what constitutes an outstanding natural landscape. In the case of the Coastal land type the differences between the two factors at the ‘upper’ (truly outstanding) end of the distribution are very subtle and appear to reflect a greater familiarity with either east or west coast. Similarly, for the Hills land type, although there are three factors overall, there are only subtle differences in evaluating what is ‘truly outstanding’, and a high degree of agreement about the basic features of a ‘truly outstanding’ landscape. For the Estuary and Harbour land type, the difference between the factors lies in whether salt marsh is considered outstanding or not. In the case of the Lowlands, the differences between the factors are more marked, and respondents emphasise either wetlands, or pastoral landscape.
4.2 Consistency between Factors on a Particular Land Type. Despite these differences shown by the factors, there was still a reasonably high degree of similarity between the dominant factors regarding coastal land types (0.72 correlation), and a modest degree of similarity between each of the estuary, lowlands and two hills viewpoints (0.5-0.6 correlation). Hence whilst there are significant statistical differences between the factors taken as a whole, there is also a degree of consensus. Typically, this consensus was greater in relation to what constitutes an outstanding natural landscape, than in what was least outstanding. This will be helpful in developing an overall evaluation. The consistencies are evident from the basic descriptors, and given the focus of the study upon identifying outstanding landscapes in a policy context, the following discussion is primarily focused upon the areas of consensus.
4.3 Summary of Viewpoints of ‘Truly Outstanding Natural Landscapes’ The following section summarises the descriptions of the landscape characteristics that are most evident within, and distinctive to, the top-rated photographs that are described as truly outstanding in each land type. Coastal: Undeveloped coastline framed by medium to high relief with cliffs, bush cover or rough pasture and only very low levels of human modification that clearly are visually subservient to the overall setting.
51
Estuary and harbour: Open water, intertidal margins and shoreline which is highly natural backed by low to medium relief with significant areas of tall vegetation, bush and pasture, and only very low levels of human modification that are clearly visually subservient to the overall setting. Lowland: Unmodified wetlands with areas of open water and well-vegetated margins, and, open rolling pastoral landscape with lakes or watercourses, remnant bush and very low density of settlement. Hills: Relatively high relief with significant areas of maturing native vegetation interspersed with rough pasture and extensive open views. Landscape structure and vegetation patterns are visually diverse, and clearly express the underlying geology, landform and natural drainage. There is a very low density of settlement that is visually highly integrated into the overall setting. The key elements that are identified in truly outstanding landscapes are medium to high relief, water, tall vegetation, beach or rocky shorelines, and an absence of human artefacts. The key qualities are legible and coherent landscape structure and patterns, variety, a sense of tranquillity, indigenous New Zealand identity, and a sense of openness and visual access. Features which particularly detract from outstanding landscapes are presence of human artefacts, lack of trees, intensive production monocultures, modified or degraded ecosystems, and visual monotony or lack of variety.
4.4 Consistencies across Different Land Types: Wild Nature and Cultured Nature There were also some consistencies in the results across different land types. This is shown in two ways. The first way is by the similar values and sentiments expressed in each equivalent factor across land types. Factors 1 & 2 Coastal, Factor 1 Estuary and Harbour, Factor 1 Lowlands, and Factor 1 Hills all express a set of values concerning outstanding natural landscapes described elsewhere (Newton et al., 2002) as ‘wild nature’. This is a position which values natural landscape most highly when there is little or no evidence of human presence, modification or management. This becomes expressed in the selection of photographs as ‘truly outstanding’ which are closest to the pristine environments in the land types under consideration. In contrast, Factor 2 Estuary and Harbour, Factor 2 Lowlands, and Factors 2 and 3 Hills, all evaluate some types of modified environment as outstanding natural landscapes. This may be equated to a ‘cultured nature’ position (Newton et al., 2002), in which the presence of humans undertaking recreational activity, or some forms of low intensity productive activity, is quite consistent with a landscape being natural and may complement or even enhance its outstanding qualities. The main expression of ‘cultured nature’ values in these factors is an acceptance of mixed pasture and bush on hills, and a rejection of salt marsh and most forms of wetland. These two overarching patterns of response (wild and cultured nature) were clearly expressed in the combined Q sort, in which two factors accounted for 97 per cent of respondents who did
52
that Q Sort. Factor 1 identified unmodified environments as outstanding natural landscapes. These were largely concentrated upon coastal, estuary and lowland wetland landscapes. This is a ‘wild’ nature position. Factor 2 expressed a more ‘cultured nature’ viewpoint, favouring coastal bush, and mixed hill pasture and bush (an Arcadian sentiment).
4.5 Relationship to Previous Studies The overall distinction between ‘wild’ and ‘cultured’ nature described above is consistent with the findings of the Coromandel study of natural character (Fairweather and Swaffield, 1999), and with recent studies in Kaikoura, Rotoroa, and South Westland (Newton et al., 2002). These consistencies and similarities add weight to the validity of the findings. The overall pattern of responses also has some significant similarities with the 1984 Auckland Regional Landscape Study (Brown, 1984), and largely confirms the findings of that study. It indicated that unmodified landscapes with either rocky or beach coastlines, open water, tall vegetation, and some measure of vertical relief were most highly rated, whilst developed, forested and agricultural landscapes were less highly rated. The 1984 study also showed that wetland and salt marsh was relatively poorly rated. However the 2002 study adds several important dimensions to the 1984 results. First, the 2002 factor analysis has identified several distinctive sets of values. This reveals that whilst some landscapes and landscape attributes are very widely recognised as outstanding by all respondents, there are others which are recognised by some respondents but not by the others. Furthermore, by separating out the different land types into four different Q sorts, the 2002 study has drawn out public preferences for types of landscape that tend to be squeezed out of the reckoning in a single combined rating. The main examples of this are salt marsh, and mixed pasture and bush on hills, both of which are more widely and more highly rated in the 2002 results than in the 1984 study. It may be that this finding is partly a result of the greater sensitivity of the 2002 methodology. However, the results of the combined Q sort suggest that there have also been some structural shifts in public preferences. Coastal landscapes, mixed pasture and bush hill country, and lowland wetlands have gone up in relative value compared to the 1984 results. This finding is entirely plausible in the wider policy and socioeconomic context. The increased value of coastal landscape is self-evident in the real estate market, reflecting population growth, increased wealth, better cars and willingness to travel. The increase in value of lowland wetlands reflects a growing appreciation of indigenous ecology, and awareness of the increasing rarity of these landscapes, due to drainage and agricultural intensification. The increased value attached to agricultural landscapes with pasture may also reflect the growing demand from urban commuters for rural lifestyle, and the consequential pressure on the more picturesque inland landscapes. The sample demographics also hint at another dimension of change, which is the influence of the growing ethnic diversity in the regional population. Data on the detailed breakdown of factors by ethnicity for each land type Q sort are shown in Appendix 3. The table shows that the Asian respondents in the sample had a greater tendency to load onto the ‘cultured nature’ factor in the inland land types and for the combined Q sort, and analysis of the interview comments confirms the value placed by these respondents upon well-managed productive landscapes. This is not a perspective that is limited to Asian respondents, nor do all Asian respondents load onto the ‘cultured nature’ factor, but it is worthy of note. European New
53
Zealanders dominate the wild nature factor 1 in the combined Q sort and their comments emphasise this focus upon pristine environments. It is also notable that whilst Maori, Polynesian and European New Zealand respondents are spread across all factors, there are very few respondents of European ethnicity loading on the ‘cultured nature’ lowlands factor 2 (characterised by open pastoral landscapes). There is also a suggestion of a distinctive Maori/Polynesian coastal factor (Factor 3 noted in the introduction but not analysed in detail), which is focused upon rocky shorelines suitable for food collection. These observations are very tentative, but do suggest that growing ethnic diversity may be part of the change in landscape values, and warrants further research.
4.6 Implications for Stage 3 of the Project The aim of this report is to present the basic findings of the Q sort interviews in stage 2 of the project. It is not intended to provide a final identification of the Auckland Region Outstanding Natural Landscapes, nor to develop a policy response. These tasks will be undertaken in succeeding stages of the project. However several issues have emerged from the analysis which will require consideration and resolution. The identification of at least two Q sort factors on each land type require a decision about what level of agreement is needed in order for a particular type of landscape to be accepted as ‘truly outstanding’. The interviews have identified some common landscape values, but also show some differences in the way certain types of landscape are valued. This is demonstrated in the summary illustrations of the ‘truly outstanding’ landscapes in each factor. To what extent is it necessary to have total agreement on what constitutes outstanding? Is it sufficient that a significant view exists within the regional community that particular landscapes and values warrant recognition and protection? There is no suggestion in either the legislation or Environment Court determinations that there must be total consensus upon the recognition of outstanding landscapes. The very high loadings on the factors in this study (accounting for 80-97% of all responses), the small numbers of factors, and the relatively high level of consensus across factors, all suggest that if a landscape is identified as truly outstanding in any of the factors, then it warrants consideration at a policy level. However this must be qualified by the need to be consistent with Section 6(b). The second issue therefore is how to resolve some inconsistencies that have emerged between public perceptions, and legal precedent regarding the definition of outstanding natural landscapes. In the lowland and hills land types in particular, there are several landscapes identified as truly outstanding in one or more factors that show a relatively high level of human modification, for example field cropping, which would not meet the established criteria used for evaluating outstanding natural landscapes by experts. It will therefore be necessary to cull several landscapes from the set, before field application.
4.7 Conclusion Distinctive viewpoints upon the characteristics of what constitutes outstanding natural landscapes in the Auckland Region have been identified. These viewpoints have been described in some detail. Taken as a whole, they indicate sets of values that are consistent with other studies and which can be associated with different types of landscape that occur with the region. The qualities that characterise outstanding natural landscapes in each of the four land types can be summarised as:
54
Coastal: Undeveloped coastline framed by medium to high relief, with cliffs, bush cover or rough pasture and only very low levels of human modification that are clearly visually subservient to the overall setting. Harbour and Estuary: Open water, intertidal margins and shoreline which is highly natural backed by low to medium relief with significant areas of tall vegetation, bush and pasture, and only very low levels of human modification that are clearly visually subservient to the overall setting. Lowland: Unmodified wetlands with areas of open water and well vegetated margins, and, open rolling pastoral landscape with lakes or watercourses, remnant bush and very low density of settlement. Hill Country: Relatively high relief with significant areas of maturing native vegetation interspersed with rough pasture and extensive open views. Landscape structure and vegetation patterns are visually diverse, and clearly express the underlying geology, landform and natural drainage. A very low density of settlement that is visually highly integrated into the overall setting.
55
References Brown S. (1984), Auckland Regional Landscape Study. Auckland, Auckland Regional
Council. Brown, S.R. (1980), Political subjectivity. Applications of Q method in political science. Yale
University Press: New Haven. Fairweather, J.R. (2002), “Factor Stability, Number of Significant Loadings and
Interpretation: Results from Three Case Studies and Suggested Guidelines ”. Operant Subjectivity 25(1):37-58.
Fairweather, J.R. and Swaffield, S. R. (1999), Public Perceptions of Natural and Modified
Landscapes of the Coromandel Peninsula, New Zealand. AERU Research Report No.241, Lincoln University.
Fairweather, J.R. and Swaffield, S. R. (2000), “Q Method Using Photographs to Study
Perceptions of the Environment in New Zealand”. Chapter 7, Pp. 131-158 in H. Addams and J. Proops (eds.) Social Discourses and Environmental Policy: Application of Q Methodology. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
Fairweather, J.R. and Swaffield, S. R. (2002), “Visitors’ and Locals’ Experiences of Rotorua
New Zealand: An Interpretative Study Using Photographs of Landscapes and Q Method”. International Journal of Tourism Research 4(4):283-297.
Fairweather J. R. and Swaffield, S. R. (2003), “Public perception of natural character and
implications for the forest sector”. New Zealand Journal of Forestry 47(4):24-30. Newton, B.M., Swaffield, S.R. and Fairweather J.R. (2002) “Public Perceptions of Natural
Character in New Zealand: Wild Nature Versus Cultured Nature”. New Zealand Geographer 58(2):14-25.
56
Appendix 1
Comments on Photographs
These are presented in the following order: Coastal, Estuary, Lowlands, Hills and Combined.
57
Coa
st F
acto
r 1
Su
bjec
t N
o.
Tru
ly o
utst
andi
ng
Lea
st o
utst
andi
ng
Deg
rade
Im
prov
e
10
H
igh
in n
ativ
e ve
geta
tion.
V
isib
le n
atur
al p
roce
sses
. U
ncor
rupt
ed b
y m
m
deve
lopm
ent.
Exci
tem
ent o
f se
a hi
tting
land
. Ref
resh
ing
clea
ns a
nd u
npol
lute
d.
Vis
ible
sign
of h
uman
inte
rven
tion.
R
esid
entia
l dev
elop
men
t too
clo
se
to b
each
. Roa
ds im
pedi
ng in
to
coas
tal m
arin
e ar
ea. L
ots o
f exo
tic
vege
tatio
n. D
evel
opm
ent
inte
rrup
ting
ridge
line.
Pow
er li
nes
unne
cess
ary.
Dev
elop
men
t thr
ough
rid
gelin
e. P
ollu
tion,
ru
bbis
h. C
lear
ing
nativ
e ve
geta
tion.
Stru
ctur
es in
w
ater
. Res
iden
tial
deve
lopm
ent.
Mor
e na
tura
l ele
men
ts
used
for i
nfra
stru
ctur
e.
Mor
e fo
cus o
n na
tive
vege
tatio
n.
22
La
ck o
f hum
an
mod
ifica
tions
. Sen
se o
f re
mot
enes
s. U
ntou
ched
. Se
nse
of g
rand
eur.
Stee
per
and
mor
e ru
gged
. Wat
er
look
s cle
ar a
nd c
lean
. N
ativ
e ve
geta
tion.
Unn
atur
al st
ruct
ures
. Lot
s of h
ard
surf
aces
. Veg
etat
ion
rem
oved
. U
nsym
path
etic
stru
ctur
es.
Exot
ic
vege
tatio
n. H
ard
stru
ctur
es
impo
sing
on
fore
shor
e.
Dev
elop
men
t too
clo
se to
shor
e.
Any
man
mad
e st
ruct
ures
. Ex
otic
veg
etat
ion.
In
tens
ive
recr
eatio
nal
ac
tiviti
es.
Com
mer
cial
ac
tiviti
es. R
emov
al o
f ve
geta
tion.
Rem
ove
hard
st
ruct
ures
pro
xim
al to
fo
resh
ore.
Pla
ntin
g na
tives
– re
mov
e ex
otic
s.
23
R
emot
enes
s – o
pen
spac
e.
No
man
mad
e st
ruct
ures
. D
ram
a of
stee
p du
nes.
Pl
easa
nt p
lace
s to
visi
t.
Var
iety
of e
lem
ents
. N
atur
al b
eaut
y.
Am
ount
of d
evel
opm
ent.
Im
porta
tion
of sa
nd.
Lack
re
mot
enes
s. E
vide
nce
of h
uman
in
terv
entio
n.
Any
hum
an m
odifi
catio
n on
bea
ch.
Bui
ldin
gs o
ut
of c
hara
cter
. O
n rid
gelin
es o
r abo
ve b
ush
line.
Rem
oval
or c
hang
e of
veg
etat
ion
to e
xotic
s.
Tidy
pro
men
ade.
M
ore
attra
ctiv
e in
terf
ace
betw
een
road
an
d be
ach
– no
t m
ater
ials
.
31
C
oast
al a
nd n
ot p
asto
ral
(not
maj
orly
so).
Und
evel
oped
, no
peop
le.
Nat
ural
ly fo
rmed
.
A
ny c
omm
erci
al
deve
lopm
ent.
Hou
sing
, R
oadi
ng.
Get
aw
ay w
ith
wal
kway
s pro
perly
look
ed
afte
r.
33
Unt
ouch
ed b
y m
an, p
eopl
e.
A
ny g
ross
hum
an
58
Sp
ecta
cula
r nat
ure
of n
atur
e –
cliff
s – b
each
scap
e. L
ack
of p
ollu
tion.
If p
eopl
e to
go
need
ade
quat
e pr
ovis
ion
e.g.
, rub
bish
bin
s.
intru
sion
– ro
ads,
pow
er
lines
– in
disc
rimin
ate
rath
er th
an b
lend
ing
ie.
stra
ight
enin
g of
con
tour
by
cut
ting
thro
ugh
head
land
of t
unne
l. R
oads
ca
n en
hanc
e na
tura
l co
asts
cape
. 34
Less
inha
bita
tion.
No
hous
ing.
Whi
te sa
nd –
na
tura
l veg
etat
ion.
Cle
ar
wat
er.
Rem
oten
ess (
8).
No
peop
le.
Rem
inds
me
of
Kar
atai
bea
ch –
no
peop
le.
H
ousi
ng. 2
4 ha
s hou
se b
ut
hidd
en.
Wha
rves
/mar
ina.
8
can’
t do
muc
h to
ups
et
it.
59
Coa
st F
acto
r 2
Su
bjec
t N
o.
Tru
ly o
utst
andi
ng
Lea
st o
utst
andi
ng
Deg
rade
Im
prov
e
7 N
atur
al.
Folia
ge in
all
of
them
. Sl
ight
ly ru
gged
ap
peal
.
R
educ
tion
of fo
liage
. A
rtific
ial u
ntid
y –
ie.
Roc
k w
alls
. M
an m
ade
intru
sion
s.
Mor
e pl
antin
g (g
rass
or
tree
s).
Bac
k fr
om
fore
shor
e ie
. Fac
ilitie
s.
Dev
elop
men
t sho
uld
impr
ove
the
envi
ronm
ent.
12
Unt
ouch
ed.
No
build
ings
(o
r ver
y fe
w).
Peo
ple
are
free
to ro
am.
Com
prom
ised
by
deve
lopm
ent.
M
any
look
tida
l and
not
so
attra
ctiv
e.
Jet s
kis a
nd m
otor
boat
s.
Rem
ote
hous
ing
in
pris
tine
area
s. R
oadi
ng.
Tidy
rubb
ish
off
beac
hes.
16
C
olou
rs o
f wat
er a
nd b
ush.
Te
xtur
es.
Dis
tinct
ive
geol
ogy
and
land
scap
e.
Dep
th o
f col
our.
Nic
e pl
aces
to v
isit.
Unt
ouch
ed –
la
ck o
f dw
ellin
gs a
nd
peop
le.
Con
cret
e ar
5ific
al lo
okin
g. H
ouse
s to
o cl
ose
to b
each
with
poo
r tra
nsiti
on b
etw
een.
Bea
ches
look
un
tidy.
Lac
k pi
ctur
esqu
e qu
aliti
es.
Pow
er li
nes.
Pow
er li
nes.
Any
de
velo
pmen
t. H
ousi
ng se
t bac
k w
ith
natu
ral t
rans
ition
to
beac
h. P
ower
line
s un
derg
roun
d. B
each
cl
eani
ng.
20
N
ot u
rban
– fe
w h
ouse
s.
Whi
te sa
nd.
Uns
poilt
. U
ninh
abite
d, ru
gged
. D
une
gras
ses f
or p
rote
ctio
n.
Dis
tinct
ive
ridge
lines
/land
form
s.
St
eep
topo
grap
hy.
Cle
ar
wat
er –
blu
e. W
aves
. Pe
acef
ul, s
eren
ity.
Roc
ks, p
ebbl
es, d
iffic
ult t
o w
alk.
U
ntid
y, se
awee
d. T
oo u
rban
ised
. To
man
y el
emen
ts (b
usy)
Roa
ding
(car
s, m
otor
bike
s).
Clu
ttere
d ho
usin
g. C
omm
erci
al,
indu
stria
l.
Cle
an b
each
es.
Wal
kway
s ove
r di
ffic
ult t
erra
in.
Plan
ting
of tr
ees.
25
Dra
mat
ic.
Sens
e of
dra
ma
Intru
sion
of u
rban
is a
det
ract
or.
In a
ppro
pria
te
Softe
ning
the
inte
rfac
e
60
an
d at
mos
pher
e. S
ense
of
disc
over
y. W
ant t
o ex
plor
e th
em.
Div
ersi
ty is
an
elem
ent.
Scra
ppin
ess.
Lac
k of
dis
tinct
ive
natu
ral c
hara
cter
. Li
ttle
bit
trans
ient
, lac
ks p
erm
anen
t for
m.
deve
lopm
ent.
Infr
inge
s on
thos
e na
tura
l. Po
llutio
n, si
ltatio
n,
disr
uptio
ns to
the
land
fo
rm.
Loss
of v
eget
atio
n.
betw
een
natu
ral/m
an
mad
e. M
ore
sym
path
etic
sitin
g of
m
an m
ade
elem
ents
. R
emov
ing
anyt
hing
th
at tr
ies t
o lo
ok
natu
ral t
o at
tem
pts t
o do
min
ate
or c
ontro
l th
e na
tura
l pro
cess
. 28
Goo
d ve
geta
tion
grow
th.
Dyn
amic
wat
er.
Aliv
e.
Goo
d fo
r usi
ng (r
ecre
atio
n).
Inte
grat
ion
of h
ouse
s, ro
cks
and
bush
. “S
umm
er
holid
ays”
. N
atur
al st
ate.
Con
trive
d. P
assi
ve re
crea
tion
not
poss
ible
(poo
r acc
ess)
. U
ntid
y st
ate
of b
each
. La
ck o
f veg
etat
ion
adja
cent
to b
each
. Pr
esen
ce o
f po
wer
line
s. S
tagn
ant.
Roa
ding
adj
acen
t to
beac
h. L
itter
. R
emov
al
of v
eget
atio
n.
Sym
path
etic
dev
elop
men
t O
K.
Rem
ove
conc
rete
, so
ften
with
veg
etat
ion.
Pl
antin
g of
tree
s.
Und
ergr
ound
ing
serv
ices
. B
ette
r tra
nsiti
ons t
o be
ach
(buf
fer z
ones
). 38
Qui
etne
ss.
Soci
al fi
shin
g,
recr
eatio
n. L
ike
to d
rive
arou
nd c
oast
(roa
ds O
K
peop
le n
ot).
Nat
ive
trees
, na
tura
l veg
etat
ion.
Con
trast
of
rock
and
veg
etat
ion.
Ea
sy to
acc
ess.
Popu
late
d. L
ess h
ealth
y en
viro
nmen
t. L
ooks
arti
ficia
l. B
uild
up
sand
dun
es.
Man
m
ade
stru
ctur
es.
Losi
ng
vege
tatio
n fr
om e
xotic
w
ildlif
e.
61
Coa
st F
acto
r 3
Su
bjec
t N
o.
Tru
ly o
utst
andi
ng
Lea
st o
utst
andi
ng
Deg
rade
Im
prov
e
42
A
cces
sibi
lity
for a
larg
e fa
mily
whi
ch in
clud
e ol
d pe
ople
. G
ood
sand
y be
ach.
So
me
prot
ectio
n an
d so
me
shad
e.
Not
acc
essi
ble.
Har
d ro
cky
terr
ain.
Li
tter.
No
toile
t fac
ilitie
s. D
evel
opm
ent?
(not
real
ly)
Not
hing
real
ly
45
G
reen
tree
s. L
ots o
f tre
es.
Nic
e sa
nd
No
trees
. N
owhe
re to
sit.
Not
sure
. Dev
elop
men
t?
leav
e it.
Ti
dy u
p (#
3).
Tree
pl
antin
g.
46
R
ocks
. C
olou
r of w
ater
. Lo
oks r
easo
nabl
y cl
ean.
Pl
ain.
Gra
ss.
Hou
ses,
build
ings
. (w
ater
not
as c
lear
, und
evel
oped
ar
eas)
Rub
bish
. Sew
age.
Po
llute
d w
ith b
oats
. To
m
uch
deve
lopm
ent.
D
evel
opm
ent?
not
real
ly.
Cle
an u
p be
ache
s, ru
bbis
h bi
ns.
47
C
lean
cle
ar w
ater
. Sh
elte
red
from
win
d. N
ot
too
popu
lar,
crow
ded,
qui
et.
Qui
etne
ss.
Popu
latio
n. C
row
ded.
Dirt
y. N
o pr
ivac
y.
Bui
ldin
gs a
roun
d th
e ar
ea
wou
ld ru
in th
e en
viro
nmen
t. D
evel
opm
ent?
Lot
s of
wal
kway
s, de
finite
ly.
Acc
ess,
no h
eavy
deve
lopm
ent.
Gen
eral
tidy
up.
62
Est
uary
Fac
tor
1
Subj
ect
No.
T
ruly
out
stan
ding
L
east
out
stan
ding
D
egra
de
Impr
ove
01
Left
mos
t nat
ural
. B
eaut
iful.
Reg
ener
atin
g bu
sh.
Goo
d ha
bita
t.
App
ealin
g pl
aces
to b
e.
Qui
etne
ss.
Too
muc
h ac
tivity
. N
ot a
ppea
ling
to v
isit.
H
ousi
ng le
vel.
Far
min
g.
Rem
oval
of v
eget
atio
n.
Cam
p gr
ound
s.
Leve
l of n
atur
al
mat
eria
ls.
Plan
ting
of
vege
tatio
n.
5 N
atur
alne
ss, f
ew p
eopl
e liv
ing
ther
e. C
ompl
exity
of
envi
ronm
ent.
Indi
geno
us
vege
tatio
n. D
istin
ctiv
e la
ndfo
rms,
head
land
. Lac
k of
hum
an m
odifi
catio
n.
Rem
ote
feel
ing,
pea
cefu
l. C
lean
, hea
lthy.
Lack
of n
atur
alne
ss. A
esth
etic
ally
di
sple
asin
g. A
ltere
d. A
rtific
ial.
Dirt
y (7
).
Any
dev
elop
men
t. N
on
inte
nsiv
e ru
ral O
K.
Obt
rusi
ve b
uild
ings
and
tra
cks (
gras
s and
fenc
es
OK
) jet
ties,
sea
wal
ls,
drai
nage
.
07
Hav
en’t
been
take
n ov
er to
m
an.
Reg
row
th is
re
gene
ratio
n. N
ot re
ally
any
gr
eat f
acto
ries o
r hou
sing
rig
ht o
n th
e ve
rge.
Peo
ple
need
acc
ess b
ut tr
y no
t to
inte
rfer
e to
o m
uch.
Fa
ctor
ies.
Hou
sing
. R
emov
al o
f nat
ural
bus
h.
Rec
laim
ing
the
estu
ary
into
live
able
hum
an sp
ace.
Pl
ant e
xotic
s ie.
Nor
folk
Pi
ne, P
alm
s wou
ld
degr
ade
area
s.
Rep
lant
nat
ive
trees
ie.
Pohu
taka
wa.
Buy
ba
ck c
oast
al p
rope
rties
w
hen
up fo
r sal
e an
d tu
rn in
to p
arks
etc
. W
alkw
ays i
n bu
sh a
nd
on fa
rm a
reas
to le
t pe
ople
in to
edu
cate
pe
ople
as t
o w
hat’s
th
ere.
22
Ty
pica
l of N
Z cl
ean
gree
n.
Wat
er c
lear
. A
bund
ant
vege
tatio
n. G
ood
habi
tat
Pollu
tion.
Hou
ses.
Des
troye
d ha
bita
ts.
Not
pea
cefu
l. B
ad
ener
gy.
Hou
ses.
Sym
path
etic
ho
usin
g O
K.
Unl
imite
d de
velo
pmen
t. R
oads
.
Rem
ove
hum
an
inte
rven
tion.
Pla
nt
nativ
e tre
es.
63
for n
ativ
e fa
una.
Hid
den
away
. A
bsen
ce o
f hou
ses
and
beds
. Pe
acef
ul, g
ood
vibe
s.
Rem
oval
of v
eget
atio
n.
Wat
er p
ollu
tion.
24
Lack
of m
an m
ade
stru
ctur
es. P
ure
clea
n lo
ok.
Nat
ural
veg
etat
ion.
U
npol
lute
d lo
okin
g.
Min
imal
hum
an
inte
rfer
ence
.
Pres
ence
of b
uilt
stru
ctur
es.
conc
rete
. Lac
k of
nat
ural
tran
sitio
n st
ruct
ures
– w
ater
. Obt
rusi
ve sc
ale
of st
ruct
ures
. Man
grov
es
unat
tract
ive.
Inte
nsiv
e bu
ilt st
ruct
ures
. U
nsym
path
etic
stru
ctur
es.
Rem
oval
of v
eget
atio
n.
Mar
ine
farm
s. St
ruct
ures
to
o cl
ose
to sh
ore.
Veg
etat
ion
plan
ting
(nat
ives
). R
emov
e ru
bbis
h. R
etai
n pu
blic
ac
cess
. Lim
it re
crea
tion.
Sy
mpa
thet
ic b
uild
ings
.29
N
o ar
tific
ial t
hing
s.
Bea
utifu
l. N
ot su
re.
B
uild
ings
. Po
llutio
n.
30
Can
not s
ee a
ny h
uman
ac
tivity
. Som
e in
the
othe
r ph
otog
raph
s but
not
gre
at
dist
urba
nce.
I ca
me
from
a
rura
l pla
ce in
Indi
a.
Smal
l hut
or p
ower
cab
les.
Any
co
nstru
ctio
n, a
ny h
uman
act
ivity
. C
ows g
razi
ng, s
till n
atur
al b
ut n
ot
as m
uch.
31
No
hous
es –
con
cret
e. N
o de
velo
pmen
t. N
o ru
bbis
h –
pollu
tion.
Mor
e bu
sh th
e be
tter.
B
usin
ess,
indu
stria
l de
velo
pmen
t. H
ousi
ng.
Too
man
y ho
uses
. To
o ar
tific
ial.
Pol
lute
d lo
okin
g.
33
Exce
pt 2
2, th
ey a
ll ha
ve
wat
er a
nd n
o si
gns o
f ha
bita
tion.
The
refo
re 2
2 an
d 9
have
them
, but
all
still
ve
ry n
atur
al. 2
2 th
eref
ore
it ha
s fer
ns.
Mor
e sp
ecia
l cf
18 h
as g
ood
com
posi
tion.
C
ould
be
anyw
here
cf.
22 is
m
ore
ours
. Com
bina
tion
of
Inap
prop
riate
hum
an in
volv
emen
t!
Roc
ks b
roug
ht in
. B
oat h
ouse
, har
d to
wal
k pa
st.
Publ
ic sp
ace!
B
uild
ings
, squ
are
box
and
pylo
ns
Encr
oach
men
t of h
uman
ac
tivity
. St
ruct
ures
, bu
ildin
gs e
tc.
Roa
ds n
ot
sens
itive
ly d
one.
Cut
ting
and
fillin
g co
ntou
rs.
64
vege
tatio
n an
d fe
rn ty
pes.
Li
ke th
ese,
in te
rms o
f ou
tsta
ndin
g na
tura
l la
ndsc
apes
. Im
porta
nt p
art
of b
eing
Kiw
i is g
oing
to
beac
h. L
ike
beac
hes.
38
C
lean
, tid
y, n
atur
al.
Man
mad
e. D
irty
Pollu
tion.
Dev
elop
men
t. C
lean
up.
65
Est
uary
Fac
tor
2
Subj
ect
No.
T
ruly
out
stan
ding
L
east
out
stan
ding
D
egra
de
Impr
ove
01
Sand
y sh
ores
nic
e to
be
on.
Cle
an lo
okin
g w
ater
. Ty
pica
l of N
Z.
Dirt
y lo
okin
g. N
ot g
ood
for
swim
min
g. N
asty
look
ing
shor
es to
w
alk
on.
Pres
ence
of i
ndus
try.
Pollu
tion.
Too
man
y bu
ildin
g.
Was
te o
f tim
e.
6 M
ore
natu
ral.
Not
inte
rfer
ed
with
. Brig
hter
pho
togr
aphs
. C
lean
and
tidy
.
Slud
gy, m
uddy
. Fac
torie
s lea
ding
to
pol
lutio
n. D
ull l
ooki
ng.
Boa
t ram
ps. A
ny h
ousi
ng.
Any
dev
elop
men
t. Lo
ss o
f ac
cess
.
14
Bal
ance
of t
rees
and
wat
er.
Lack
of b
uild
ings
. Se
rene
. Fe
mal
e
Swam
p lik
e, u
nattr
activ
e. B
arre
n.
Neg
lect
ed.
App
ears
pol
lute
d.
Diff
icul
t to
wal
k on
Min
or d
evel
opm
ent o
nly
wou
ld b
e O
K.
Mos
t de
velo
pmen
t wou
ld
degr
ade.
Rem
ove
build
ing.
So
me
area
s are
ne
cess
arily
so.
Plan
ting
of tr
ees.
17
Com
bina
tion
of v
eget
atio
n an
d w
ater
. Diff
eren
t sha
des
of g
reen
. Col
our c
ontra
st.
Lack
of d
evel
opm
ent.
Look
s dirt
y. R
ocks
and
shel
ves
unpl
easa
nt to
wal
k on
. Man
mad
e st
ruct
ures
and
dev
elop
men
t.
Bui
ldin
gs, r
oads
, pat
hs.
Boa
ts a
nd p
assi
ve
recr
eatio
n.
Mor
e gr
ass.
Less
fa
ctor
ies.
Mor
e sa
fety
.
20
Nat
ural
look
. Abs
ence
of
hous
es. P
eace
ful.
Unn
atur
al. T
oo m
uch
deve
lopm
ent.
Roa
ds. B
uild
ings
, fa
ctor
ies,
hous
es.
Rem
ove
man
mad
e st
ruct
ures
. 25
Is
olat
ion.
Enj
oyab
le p
lace
s to
vis
it. L
ooks
nat
ural
. U
ndev
elop
ed st
ate.
Loo
ks
clea
n.
Man
grov
es! P
rolif
ic g
row
th a
roun
d A
uckl
and.
Unn
atur
al. S
ilt b
uild
up,
ch
okin
g w
ater
wee
d. A
ppea
rs
pollu
ted
due
to in
dust
ry. T
idal
pr
otec
tion
wal
ls. H
ouse
s too
clo
se
to sh
ore.
Rub
ble
infil
l.
Any
dev
elop
men
t cau
sing
ru
noff
. Any
dev
elop
men
t to
o cl
ose
to th
e sh
ore.
In
tens
ive
recr
eatio
n.
Rem
oval
of v
eget
atio
n.
Leav
e pr
istin
e ar
eas a
lone
.
26
No
mor
e st
ruct
ures
. R
epre
sent
a d
iver
se sa
mpl
e of
est
uarin
e en
viro
ns.
Ecol
ogic
ally
impr
ovem
ent –
Deg
ree
of b
uilt
stru
ctur
e.
Mod
ifica
tion
to c
oast
line.
Pow
er
lines
. U
rban
are
as n
ot n
atur
al.
Cou
ld b
e fu
rther
mod
ified
with
out
Any
bui
ldin
gs.
Arti
ficia
l st
ruct
ures
(sea
wal
ls).
R
emov
al o
f veg
etat
ion
(unc
ontro
lled)
. In
tens
ive
Prev
ent p
ollu
tion
and
rem
edia
te. P
reve
nt
pede
stria
n ac
cess
. Li
mit
boat
ing
66
habi
tats
. Ty
pica
l NZ
scen
es.
Hol
iday
type
pl
aces
. R
emot
e un
spoi
lt.
detri
men
t.
recr
eatio
n. B
oat m
oorin
g.
activ
ities
. Li
mit
furth
er m
odifi
catio
n.
Setb
ack
buff
er z
ones
fo
r bui
ldin
gs.
Sym
path
etic
des
ign.
Pr
even
t tre
e re
mov
al.
36
Var
iety
of e
lem
ents
in th
e pi
ctur
e. T
he w
ay it
’s se
t ou
t. N
ativ
e tre
es
Lack
of c
olou
r. N
ot v
ery
pret
ty.
Rem
oval
of t
rees
. En
hanc
e w
ith v
arie
ty
and
som
e gr
eeni
ng.
37
Scen
ery.
Wat
er.
Tree
s.
Cle
an.
Blu
e w
ater
. U
nspo
ilt.
Dirt
y. N
ot a
hol
iday
des
tinat
ion.
D
ull.
Fact
orie
s. W
ipin
g ou
r tre
es.
Cle
an it
up.
67
Low
land
s Fac
tor
1
Subj
ect
No.
T
ruly
out
stan
ding
L
east
out
stan
ding
D
egra
de
Impr
ove
03
Tota
lly n
atur
al, n
ot
mod
ified
by
man
. La
ck o
f an
y si
gn o
f man
. C
oast
al
mar
ine
area
app
eals
. C
oast
al m
argi
ns im
porta
nt
to p
rote
ct.
Hig
h pe
rcen
tage
of m
an m
ade
stru
ctur
es.
Plan
ts a
lthou
gh c
rops
be
tter t
han
non
orga
nic.
Any
loss
of v
eget
atio
n or
cl
eara
nce.
Div
ert o
r po
llute
wat
er o
r ec
osys
tem
s. In
trusi
on o
f m
an m
ade
stru
ctur
es.
Kee
p pr
istin
e.
Plan
ting
of n
ativ
es.
Rem
oval
of h
ouse
s, fe
nces
etc
.
05
Var
iatio
n in
land
form
. W
ater
, lan
d, v
eget
atio
n, sk
y.
Text
ures
and
col
ours
. N
ativ
e ve
geta
tion.
Lac
k of
m
an m
ade
stru
ctur
es. D
ying
ve
geta
tion
show
s cyc
lic
natu
re o
f veg
etat
ion.
Litt
le
sign
of m
odifi
catio
n.
Lack
s var
iety
, bor
ing.
No
colo
ur o
r te
xtur
e. N
ot d
istin
ctiv
e. H
uman
pa
ttern
s obv
ious
. C
ultiv
atio
n.
Dra
in w
etla
nds.
M
otor
bike
s des
troyi
ng
dune
s. R
emov
al o
f ve
geta
tion
even
dea
d tre
es.
Acc
ess n
eeds
to b
e lim
ited.
No
deve
lopm
ent
appr
opria
te w
ithin
thes
e la
ndsc
apes
.
09
No
addi
tion
of e
xotic
s. N
o m
an m
ade
as c
an se
e.
Mos
tly n
o st
ruct
ures
or
wee
ds.
If
the
wat
er w
as d
iver
ted
or d
eple
ted.
Add
ition
or
exot
ics.
Add
ition
of
wee
ds.
Man
mad
e st
ruct
ures
.
Add
tree
s to
past
oral
la
nd.
Shel
ter b
elts
to
hide
fenc
es.
Erad
icat
e th
ings
like
gor
se.
12
Clo
se to
orig
inal
. N
atur
al
land
scap
e be
fore
hum
an
inte
rven
tion.
Po
llutio
n (r
unof
f mai
nly)
. H
uman
inte
rfer
ence
. R
emov
al o
f tre
es.
Wal
king
trac
k re
mov
es
the
adve
ntur
e.
No,
leav
e co
mpl
etel
y al
one.
Not
hing
real
ly
exce
pt a
dditi
on o
f tre
es.
14
Wat
er.
Unt
ouch
ed b
y hu
man
look
. N
atur
al
C
omm
erci
al d
evel
opm
ent.
C
once
ntra
ted
resi
dent
ial.
Not
sure
. A
cces
s (m
inim
al).
Boa
rd
68
ridge
line.
Vis
ta (v
iew
from
la
nd o
ver s
ea to
land
aga
in)
wal
ks (1
). D
une
rete
ntio
n to
hel
p la
ndsc
ape.
15
M
ost n
atur
al.
Mor
e na
tive
indi
geno
us p
lant
s. U
nspo
ilt.
Wat
er.
Left
in n
atur
al st
ate
Bui
lt up
with
hou
se st
ruct
ure.
Lan
d be
en p
loug
hed
and
farm
ed
Wat
er a
rom
as.
Nat
ive
plan
t cle
ared
. H
ouse
bui
lt on
A lo
t mor
e na
tive
plan
ting.
21
Pres
ence
of w
ater
. Pr
esen
ce
of n
ativ
e ve
geta
tion.
R
ollin
g hi
llsid
es.
Ver
y na
tura
l and
ple
asan
t to
visi
t.
Goo
d ha
bita
ts.
Lack
of
hum
an in
terv
entio
n.
Stro
ng e
vide
nce
of h
uman
act
ivity
. La
rge
mod
ifica
tion.
Pow
er p
oles
. D
enud
ed o
f veg
etat
ion
and
drai
ned.
Sp
arta
n, e
xotic
tree
s. A
rtific
ial.
H
ighl
y m
odifi
ed.
Dra
inin
g w
etla
nds.
Pl
antin
g of
exo
tics.
R
emov
al o
f veg
etat
ion.
M
an m
ade
stru
ctur
es.
Roa
ds.
Pass
ive
acce
ss
OK
, not
maj
or.
Ove
r st
akin
g.
Scre
enin
g pl
antin
g.
Mor
e tre
es.
Sym
path
etic
col
our
sche
mes
. Ev
ergr
een
nativ
es.
28
Lim
ited
hum
an in
terv
entio
n.
Ban
ani
mal
s but
littl
e bu
ilt
land
scap
es e
.g.,
Dw
ellin
g,
pole
s, po
wer
line
s
R
oads
, dis
turb
ance
to
grou
nd, d
unes
. A
nym
ore
rem
oval
of v
eget
atio
n.
Any
mor
e gr
azin
g.
Cou
ld b
y en
hanc
ed b
y re
vege
tatio
n, e
g. 5
still
is
out
stan
ding
. eg.
24,
tra
ck b
lock
ed o
ff o
r m
ade
into
boa
rd w
alk.
36
N
ativ
e fo
rest
. W
ater
. M
ore
natu
ral,
look
s how
it’s
su
ppos
e to
.
Farm
land
eve
ryw
here
. N
ot
diff
eren
t to
any
othe
r far
m
anyw
here
. R
esid
entia
l de
velo
pmen
t.
Farm
ing.
Res
iden
tial
deve
lopm
ent.
Hea
vy
deve
lopm
ent.
Nat
ive
plan
ting.
Pon
d.
Boa
rd w
alks
wou
ld
last
bet
ter.
69
Low
land
s Fac
tor
2
Subj
ect
No.
T
ruly
out
stan
ding
L
east
out
stan
ding
D
egra
de
Impr
ove
04
Pres
ence
of w
ater
. Pre
senc
e of
tree
s. Pa
stur
e an
d A
nim
als.
Rol
ling
hills
Obv
ious
hum
an in
terv
entio
n.
Cul
tivat
ed p
atte
rns.
Too
flat.
Res
iden
tial d
evel
opm
ent.
Traf
fic a
nd ro
ads.
Plan
t tre
es –
nat
ives
-no
t for
estry
blo
cks.
Mor
e an
imal
s, N
on
unifo
rmity
, no
stra
ight
lin
es.
07
Cle
an g
reen
imag
e.
Nat
ural
, no
hum
ans.
Gre
en
not d
ead.
Unt
ouch
ed
natu
re.
Col
our c
ontra
st
(blu
e/gr
een)
. H
ills
(pre
senc
e of
). T
rees
(p
rese
nce
of).
Bro
wn,
look
like
pol
lutio
n. H
uman
in
terv
entio
n. H
ouse
s – p
ollu
tion.
D
ead
look
ing
mes
sy v
eget
atio
n.
Larg
e bu
ildin
gs.
Loss
of
trees
. C
omm
erci
al
deve
lopm
ent.
Any
ho
usin
g.
10
Wat
er a
nd g
reen
. Vis
ta,
outlo
ok. U
nclu
ttere
d. 3
0 cr
eek,
sea,
tree
s for
shel
ter.
Peop
le w
ith th
e la
ndsc
ape.
D
iffer
ent s
hade
s.
D
ry lo
okin
g pl
ants
. Bus
h fir
e.
Shad
e fo
r the
cat
tle.
Fenc
ing,
got
to h
ave
it.
Fix
the
dryn
ess.
11
Wat
er.
Lots
of g
reen
. Tr
ees
Po
llutio
n. L
ess o
f the
na
tura
l loo
k. D
rain
ed.
Fact
orie
s. H
uman
traf
fic.
Plan
ting.
Rem
oval
of
brow
n pl
ants
. W
alks
bu
t not
hing
els
e.
16
Cle
ar w
ater
. Sc
enic
shot
s.
Tidy
and
wel
l mai
ntai
ned.
Lo
oks u
ntid
y. W
ater
not
cle
ar.
Mes
sy.
Dev
elop
men
t for
co
nser
vatio
n w
ould
by
OK
. R
oads
and
hou
ses
OK
. C
ompl
ex st
ruct
ures
no
t OK
.
Not
sure
.
17
Pres
ence
of w
ater
. C
ontra
st
Mud
–un
attra
ctiv
e. U
ntid
y –
not
Any
dev
elop
men
t. P
erso
n C
ontro
l of w
eeds
.
70
of c
olou
r – w
ater
and
land
. V
arie
ty o
f ele
men
ts (t
rees
).
Ope
nnes
s. T
idy.
Pat
tern
s.
wel
l mai
ntai
ned.
No
orde
r. tra
ck O
K, b
ut n
ot ro
ads
etc.
M
aint
enan
ce.
Gen
eral
tid
ying
and
ord
er.
22
Nat
ural
look
ing.
Gre
en.
Pres
ence
of w
ater
and
its
com
bina
tion
with
nat
ural
la
ndsc
ape
mat
ches
wel
l.
Dry
look
ing
– or
dyi
ng.
Impr
essi
on
of d
amag
e or
rotte
n. M
uddy
and
di
rty.
Not
nat
ural
. A
band
oned
and
po
orly
man
aged
.
Pollu
tion.
C
omm
erci
al/in
dust
rial.
R
esid
entia
l OK
. D
rain
age
of w
ater
. R
oadi
ng.
Fenc
es.
Intro
duce
cle
an w
ater
. Le
ave
to re
vert
or lo
ok
afte
r bet
ter –
bet
ter
plan
ning
.
32
Ver
satil
e, w
ater
, col
our.
Too
muc
h sc
rub,
Wat
er lo
okin
g di
rty. L
ooks
pol
lute
d.
Cho
ppin
g do
wn
the
trees
. R
ubbi
sh in
nat
ure.
B
uild
ings
.
33
Like
the
land
scap
e. W
ater
. V
iew
. N
ice
colo
urs.
Mes
sy.
Col
our.
Som
e ho
usin
g.
Cle
an o
ut m
essy
pl
ants
. R
epla
nt.
38
Wat
er. N
atur
al lo
okin
g.
Nat
ive
vege
tatio
n. C
lean
. U
nspo
ilt.
Muc
ky. D
evel
opm
ent.
Bro
wn.
R
emov
al o
f tre
es. H
avin
g de
velo
pmen
t.
71
Low
land
s Fac
tor
3
Subj
ect
No.
T
ruly
out
stan
ding
L
east
out
stan
ding
D
egra
de
Impr
ove
34
Ver
satil
e, w
ater
and
hill
s.
Tidy
. N
ot ti
dy.
Not
cle
an a
nd n
ice.
Po
llutio
n
Tidy
up.
D
evel
opm
ent?
leav
e as
they
are
. 35
Lo
oks g
ood.
Wat
er.
Ani
mal
s. Pl
ain.
Dirt
y (#
3).
Bui
ldin
g ho
uses
on
them
. N
ot re
ally
.
37
Goo
d la
nd fo
r far
min
g an
d fo
r peo
ple
to li
ve.
Swam
py.
Mud
dy.
Can
’t us
e.
Hea
vy d
evel
opm
ent.
C
ause
s soi
l ero
sion
. To
cov
er th
e sw
amp
with
fill.
72
Hill
s Fac
tor
1
Subj
ect
No.
T
ruly
out
stan
ding
L
east
out
stan
ding
D
egra
de
Impr
ove
01
Trul
y na
tura
l. W
ild n
atur
al,
unto
uche
d.
V
eget
atio
n co
ver.
Les
s na
tive.
Les
s co
ver/d
ensi
ty.
04
Nat
ural
bea
uty.
Pre
senc
e of
w
ater
with
tree
righ
t dow
n to
it.
Und
istu
rbed
. N
one
(tree
s?) a
ctua
lly fi
tted,
pu
rely
nat
ural
ly.
Farm
land
. Tr
ees h
ave
no a
uthe
ntic
ap
peal
. D
ead,
dul
l loo
king
, lac
k of
w
ater
. D
on’t
look
acc
essi
ble.
Pr
esen
ce o
f bar
riers
, fen
ces a
nd
hedg
erow
s.
Dev
elop
men
t OK
but
ap
prop
riate
. In
dust
rial n
ot
OK
.
Blo
cks o
f big
tree
s (n
ativ
e).
Acc
ess a
nd
infr
astru
ctur
e. I
nsta
ll so
me
orde
r to
the
land
scap
e, n
o pa
ths
curr
ently
. 07
W
ater
/land
inte
rfac
e.
Nat
ive
bush
.
Cle
aran
ce o
f veg
etat
ion.
St
ruct
ures
on
sign
ifica
nt
ridge
line.
Rev
eget
atio
n. S
ubtle
de
velo
pmen
t. W
ell
scre
ened
. N
ot to
larg
e in
term
s of d
wel
ling
size
. 10
N
atur
alne
ss.
Unt
ouch
ed.
Don
’t se
em m
an m
ade.
Pu
re.
The
real
NZ
befo
re it
w
as to
uche
d. G
reen
and
w
ater
. Se
rene
and
mag
ical
.
R
emov
al o
f tre
es.
Hou
sing
. Pu
tting
in d
ocks
(w
ater
way
s, bo
ats)
No
deve
lopm
ent.
13
Uns
poile
d. W
ater
. Tr
ees.
V
ista
s (la
rge)
Rem
oval
of t
rees
, slip
s, ho
uses
, fire
s Pr
otec
t the
tree
s tha
t ar
e th
ere.
Tou
rist
faci
litie
s tha
t don
’t im
pact
hea
vily
on
the
envi
ronm
ent o
r la
ndsc
ape.
27
N
atur
al lo
okin
g. D
iver
sity
H
ousi
ng in
rura
l are
a to
o de
nse.
To
o de
nse
hous
ing
Sym
path
etic
73
of n
atur
al e
lem
ents
. C
ombi
natio
n of
nat
ural
el
emen
ts.
Con
cret
e.
deve
lopm
ent.
Sm
all
lifes
tyle
blo
ck.
Com
mer
cial
and
in
dust
rial.
For
estry
(p
ine)
.
plac
emen
t and
des
ign
of h
ousi
ng.
Avo
id
urba
n ro
adin
g,
patte
rns a
nd b
uild
ing
in ru
ral a
rea.
29
Le
ast h
uman
con
tact
, pur
e bu
sh, n
o cl
earin
g, fe
nce
road
s, ho
uses
. Li
ke 2
-300
ye
ars a
go. P
ristin
e.
C
oncr
ete!
– ie
. R
emov
ing
trees
, gre
en.
31
Nea
r the
sea.
No
hum
an
elem
ents
eg.
Hou
ses.
Can
“s
mel
l” th
e la
ndsc
ape.
N
ativ
e tre
es.
Cul
ture
d. P
rese
nce
of h
ouse
s.
Show
s wea
lth is
pal
atia
l com
pare
d to
fam
ily h
ome.
Boa
ts.
Hou
sing
. Pi
ne
Plan
tatio
ns.
Dev
elop
men
t an
cilla
ry to
hou
sing
OK
–
alre
ady
com
prom
ised
.
37
Gre
en.
Rug
ged
hills
. N
ativ
e bu
sh.
Ope
n vi
stas
. Se
a vi
ews.
Bro
wn.
Dev
elop
men
t. T
o m
uch
deve
lopm
ent.
Cut
ting
dow
n tre
es.
Obs
truct
ing
sea
view
s w
ith b
uild
ings
. Po
llutio
n.
May
be to
mak
e gr
een
grow
ing
trees
. C
oupl
e of
hol
iday
hou
ses.
W
alkw
ays.
74
Hill
s Fac
tor
2
Subj
ect
No.
T
ruly
out
stan
ding
L
east
out
stan
ding
D
egra
de
Impr
ove
06
Ove
rall
vist
a. P
rese
nce
of
sea.
Com
plex
ligh
ting.
C
lutte
red
look
ing
with
tree
s and
ho
uses
. C
omm
erci
al d
evel
opm
ent.
A
ny re
side
ntia
l.
16
Cle
an w
ater
. App
reci
ate
farm
s and
live
stoc
k. N
ice
coun
trysi
de.
Plen
ty o
f tre
es.
Com
bina
tion
of h
ill fo
rest
an
d w
ater
ele
men
ts,
Man
mad
e st
ruct
ures
. B
row
n an
d du
ll.
Cro
ps n
ot y
et g
row
n.
Rem
ove
vege
tatio
n.
Pollu
te w
ater
.
No
hous
es.
Less
mes
sy tr
ees,
prov
ide
orde
red
plan
ting.
Get
aw
ay
from
mon
ocul
tura
l cr
ops w
hich
leav
e ar
eas b
arre
n lo
okin
g al
l at o
nce.
18
Pr
esen
ce o
f wat
er a
nd it
s co
ntra
st w
ith th
e la
nd.
Con
trast
of e
lem
ents
in e
ach
phot
o. W
ell v
eget
ated
with
tre
es.
Dis
tinct
ive
ridge
line/
land
form
. U
ndis
turb
ed.
Dul
l and
bro
wn.
Gra
ss is
dyi
ng.
Sign
s of h
uman
inte
rven
tion.
N
o de
velo
pmen
t. R
epla
ntin
g of
tree
s (n
ativ
e).
19
Sea
in b
ackg
roun
d (#
27).
Tr
ees (
#19)
. C
ontra
st o
f la
ndsc
apes
(#12
).
Scra
ppy.
Unt
idy.
Not
wel
l loo
ked
afte
r by
owne
r. B
uilt
up a
lot.
Leav
e ho
w
they
are
. C
lean
ed u
p w
ith n
ice
trees
pla
nted
.
21
Past
ure,
wat
er a
nd fo
rest
ry
mak
e a
nice
eco
logi
cal
bala
nce.
Ret
entio
n of
tree
s an
d pa
stur
e.
Hea
vy re
side
ntia
l for
a ru
ral a
rea
(#3)
. A
lot o
f wee
d an
d sc
rub
that
lo
oks u
ntid
y an
d m
essy
.
To fu
rther
subd
ivid
e w
ith
resi
dent
ial d
evel
opm
ent.
Lo
ts o
f tre
esca
pe fe
atur
es.
Plan
ting
of tr
ees i
n st
eep
gulli
es o
r are
as
of e
rosi
on.
Bet
ter
past
ure
man
agem
ent.
N
o fa
ctor
ies.
Cou
ld
be sy
mpa
thet
ical
ly
deve
lope
d w
ith lo
w
75
dens
ity ru
ral/u
rban
de
velo
pmen
t.
24
Lack
of h
ouse
s. N
ativ
e bu
sh.
Coa
stal
ele
men
t.
Nat
ural
land
form
of h
ills.
N
atur
al
Scra
ggy
bush
. H
ousi
ng. M
odifi
ed
by h
uman
s. F
ores
try u
nattr
activ
e.
Man
mad
e st
ruct
ures
on
skyl
ine.
Larg
e sc
ale
earth
wor
ks.
Fore
stry
. La
ws.
V
eget
atio
n re
mov
al.
Stru
ctur
es in
wat
er.
Pylo
n/m
asts
. In
tens
ive
resi
dent
ial (
3 or
4 h
ouse
s).
Roa
ding
. Int
ensi
ve
farm
ing.
Scre
enin
g of
hou
ses
with
veg
etat
ion.
R
etai
n bu
sh –
rem
ove
exot
ics.
Lim
it re
side
ntia
l de
velo
pmen
t es
peci
ally
skyl
ine.
32
Smoo
th c
onto
ur a
nd
vege
tatio
n. L
and
to se
a co
ntra
st.
Dis
tinct
ive.
Pr
esen
ce o
f wat
er.
Rol
ling
plea
sing
.
B
ulky
dev
elop
men
t.
Bre
akin
g pa
ttern
.
76
Hill
s Fac
tor
3
Subj
ect
No.
T
ruly
out
stan
ding
L
east
out
stan
ding
D
egra
de
Impr
ove
02
Div
ersi
ty o
f ele
men
ts (w
ater
ec
osys
tem
s, et
c.).
Obv
ious
ec
osys
tem
. La
nd is
woo
ded
to w
ater
line.
No
obvi
ous
eros
ion.
Woo
ded
back
drop
. Fa
mili
ar.
Tree
s pre
serv
ed.
Rid
gelin
e ha
s bee
n pr
eser
ved.
A
ny re
mov
al o
f gro
und
cove
r, pa
rticu
larly
nea
r w
ater
way
. In
trusi
on o
f pa
stur
e in
woo
ded
area
.
15
Nat
ive
bush
. Lo
ts o
f tre
es.
Clo
se to
way
it w
ould
hav
e be
en o
rigin
ally
. Sp
ace
for
deve
lopm
ent i
n te
rms o
f fo
od so
urce
etc
. N
eed
bush
. D
iver
sity
, not
bar
ren.
H
uman
s in
harm
ony
not
over
taki
ng
Sp
ray,
inse
ctic
ide.
O
poss
um.
Dam
s.
Indu
stria
lsat
ion.
Far
m ru
n of
f. W
aste
. R
emov
al/fe
lling
of t
rees
Som
e co
mpl
etel
y na
tura
l are
a. N
o de
velo
pmen
t in
unto
uche
d ar
eas.
(th
ere
shou
ld b
e a
sim
ilar s
urve
y on
the
apar
tmen
t blo
ck –
and
id
eas f
or li
mits
etc
). 20
Pure
. M
iddl
e of
now
here
. C
ount
rysi
de.
Bus
h/co
untry
. R
elax
ing.
Wat
er v
iew
.
Scru
ffy
look
ing.
O
ver p
opul
atio
n.
Rem
ove
dead
woo
d.
Not
muc
h re
ally
.
22
No
man
mad
e st
ruct
ures
. N
atur
al v
eget
atio
n (n
ativ
e).
Nic
e vi
sta
com
bina
tion
of
elem
ents
. Lo
oks w
ell
man
aged
. St
eepe
r cou
ntry
lo
oks b
ette
r. Fo
rest
ed.
Inte
rest
ing
patte
rns.
Bar
ren
bare
dirt
. U
nkem
pt, s
cruf
fy
– lit
tle c
are.
Wee
ds- g
orse
– u
gly.
N
ot w
ell m
anag
ed.
Man
mad
e st
ruct
ures
. M
arin
e fa
rms.
Den
udin
g of
veg
etat
ion
parti
cula
rly.
Stee
p la
nd a
nd ri
ver
valle
ys.
Nox
ious
pes
ts.
Unn
eces
sary
cle
arin
g fo
r de
velo
pmen
t, m
an m
ade
Plan
ting
of c
lum
ps
pref
erab
ly e
verg
reen
s or
nat
ives
par
ticul
arly
rip
aria
n. R
educ
e m
onoc
ultu
re
appe
aran
ce.
Mor
e pe
rman
ent v
eget
atio
n.
77
Sym
path
etic
hou
sing
. Pr
esen
ce o
f wat
er.
pa
ttern
s. O
bstru
ctin
g vi
stas
. Lo
ss o
f coa
stal
ve
geta
tion.
Allo
w re
gene
ratio
n.
23
Com
bina
tion
of ,b
ush,
wat
er
and
hills
. M
ost n
atur
al.
Wat
er im
porta
nt.
Pres
ence
of
bus
h fr
ames
vis
ta.
Rug
gedn
ess,
inte
rest
ing
ridge
line
(littl
e er
osio
n).
Pres
ence
of t
rees
not
ne
cess
arily
nat
ives
. Pas
tora
l la
ndsc
ape.
Mod
ifica
tion.
Bla
nd n
othi
ngne
ss.
Pine
tree
s! B
are
gree
n no
thin
g to
br
eak
up v
ista
.
Rem
oval
of v
eget
atio
n.
Obt
rusi
ve h
ousi
ng.
Dom
inan
ce o
f man
mad
e st
ruct
ures
. R
oads
.
Plan
ting
of tr
ees.
Sc
reen
ing
of
deve
lopm
ent w
ith
trees
.
28
Bus
h cl
ad h
ills,
and
sea
com
bina
tion
and
cont
rast
w
ith p
astu
re (m
odes
t).
Hill
s, se
a, b
ush.
Goo
d m
ixtu
re.
Pine
s not
nat
ural
. To
uris
t Hot
el.
Cab
le c
ars.
M
otor
way
. Fe
lling
of
bush
.
38
Nat
ive
bush
. O
pen
view
. O
cean
vie
w.
Hill
s. N
atur
al
Dev
elop
men
t. C
lear
land
. Fa
rm
(and
man
mad
e fo
rest
) Pl
ant f
ores
try.
Bui
ld
hous
es
Rep
lant
nat
ive
trees
. Tr
acks
for p
eopl
e to
w
alk
thro
ugh
so th
ey
can
unde
rsta
nd w
hy it
sh
ould
be
pres
erve
d.
78
Com
bine
d Fa
ctor
1
Su
bjec
t N
o.
Tru
ly o
utst
andi
ng
Lea
st o
utst
andi
ng
Deg
rade
Im
prov
e
04
Nat
ural
.
No
influ
ence
of m
an.
Rug
ged
beau
ty.
Com
bina
tion
of b
ush
and
wat
er.
Lack
of t
rees
. “n
o tre
es –
man
is
dead
”.
Ecos
yste
m c
rum
blin
g.
No
thou
ght f
or e
nviro
nmen
tal
syst
ems.
D
evel
opm
ent t
o in
tens
e.
Squa
res –
not
flow
ing
like
natu
re.
Arti
ficia
l.
Rem
oval
of v
eget
atio
n.
Man
mad
e di
sast
ers
(nuc
lear
, oil
slic
ks).
D
evel
opm
ent O
K b
ut n
ot
degr
ade
ecos
yste
ms.
Hab
itat b
elts
he
dger
ows.
Im
prov
e so
il st
ruct
ure,
or
gani
c.
Get
rid
of so
me
cow
s.
17
Pres
ence
of w
ater
/bea
ches
. B
eaut
iful n
ativ
e bu
sh.
Li
ttle
if an
y ho
usin
g.
Isol
atio
n.
Cle
anlin
ess.
Unt
ouch
ed.
Wou
ld n
ot li
ke to
be
ther
e.
All
wor
ked
look
ing
and
artif
icia
l.
Dirt
ier l
ooki
ng.
No
hous
ing
and
road
de
velo
pmen
t.
No
com
mer
cial
de
velo
pmen
t.
To b
e le
ft un
touc
hed.
Plan
ting
of n
ativ
e tre
es (d
evel
opm
ent
does
hav
e to
occ
ur in
so
me
plac
es).
19
No
sign
of c
ivili
satio
n.
Unt
ouch
ed.
N
o m
an m
ade
stru
ctur
es.
The
mor
e si
gn o
f hum
an im
pact
the
low
er th
e ph
oto.
A
ny si
gn o
f hum
an
pam
perin
g.
Nat
ive
vege
tatio
n,
rem
oval
of m
an m
ade
stru
ctur
es.
Allo
w n
ativ
e re
gene
ratio
n.
Rem
ove
or h
ide
build
ings
beh
ind
natu
ral b
uffe
rs.
23
Pres
ence
of w
ater
and
be
ache
s.
Lack
of p
eopl
e or
sign
s of
peop
le.
Fe
elin
g of
solit
ude.
C
olou
r con
trast
.
Text
ure
cont
rast
.
Bee
n m
odifi
ed, f
ence
s, ho
uses
. Pi
ne p
lant
atio
n.
Not
dis
tinct
ive.
N
onde
scrip
t.
Any
dev
elop
men
t. A
ll ar
eas h
ave
som
e va
lue.
79
Nat
ural
ness
.
Und
istu
rbed
. 25
Se
a.
Com
bina
tion
of v
eget
atio
n,
rock
s and
sea.
H
ousi
ng to
clo
se.
Se
a ac
tiviti
es (s
houl
d be
ca
refu
l).
Add
ition
al v
eget
atio
n.
May
be v
ery
basi
c tra
cks t
hat b
lend
in.
28
App
eara
nce
of b
eing
un
touc
hed
by h
uman
.
No
peop
le in
it.
N
atur
al.
R
epre
sent
s New
Zea
land
.
Ecol
ogic
al v
alue
.
Pris
tine.
Com
mer
ce a
nd p
eopl
e.
Touc
hed
by p
eopl
e.
Com
mer
cial
isat
ion.
R
esid
entia
l dev
elop
men
t.
Pollu
tion
(oil
spill
etc
).
Indu
stria
l pol
lutio
n ie
. (#
18).
Not
hing
real
ly.
44
Rel
atio
nshi
p be
twee
n co
asta
l mar
ine
land
and
w
ater
– n
atur
al tr
ansi
tion.
Pl
easa
nt w
ater
setti
ng.
Dyn
amic
land
scap
e w
ith
wat
er sh
ots –
tida
l wea
ther
.
Obv
ious
ly m
odifi
ed, n
ot n
atur
al.
Obt
rusi
ve d
evel
opm
ent i
n so
me
area
s.
Deg
rada
tion
of w
ater
and
ve
geta
tion.
N
on sy
mpa
thet
ic m
arin
e de
velo
pmen
t. So
me
sym
path
etic
de
velo
pmen
t ore
in
terv
entio
n is
not
de
tract
ive.
49
Mos
t nat
ural
and
un
mod
ified
. R
epre
sent
ativ
e of
pre
- hu
man
New
Zea
land
, im
porta
nt to
reta
in.
Wat
er is
ver
y im
porta
nt
visu
ally
. Sp
iritu
al, c
onne
cted
to li
fe.
Sens
e of
pla
ce, e
spec
ially
A
uckl
and.
R
ecre
atio
n.
Hig
hly
mod
ified
land
scap
e.
Wat
er p
ollu
ted.
Sc
ale
of d
evel
opm
ent.
Agr
icul
ture
equ
ally
bad
as
stru
ctur
es.
Dra
inag
e of
wet
land
s.
Man
mad
e st
ruct
ures
. B
oat r
amps
, wha
rves
. C
omm
erci
al d
evel
opm
ent,
hous
es.
Cha
ngin
g fr
om in
dige
nous
to
exo
tics.
Roa
ds a
nd p
ower
line
s.
80
Fish
ing.
C
ontra
st a
ppea
rs o
bvio
us.
52
Dis
tinct
ive
land
form
, ty
pica
l of N
ew Z
eala
nd
coas
t. A
ttrac
tive
to lo
ok a
t. La
ck o
f hum
an
mod
ifica
tion.
Mos
t mod
ified
.
Any
hou
sing
. A
ny d
evel
opm
ent.
Ann
oyin
g co
mbi
natio
n of
ho
uses
and
bus
h.
Clu
ster
ed
deve
lopm
ent.
55
Pres
ence
of w
ater
. D
ram
a.
Rar
ity, u
nusu
al.
Isol
atio
n.
Ecol
ogy.
C
alen
dar s
tuff
– c
olou
r of
wat
er.
Tree
s rig
ht d
own
to w
ater
. Pe
acef
ul w
ith e
lem
ents
of
dram
a.
Mon
ocul
ture
of c
ropp
ing
or
fore
stry
. B
leak
ness
. N
o tre
es.
Hum
an m
odifi
catio
n ha
s deg
rade
d la
ndsc
ape.
La
cks i
nter
est.
Unn
atur
al c
oast
line.
Too
muc
h hu
man
in
terv
entio
n.
Loss
of c
oast
al v
eget
atio
n.Si
lting
lead
s to
man
grov
es.
Bui
lt st
ruct
ures
in c
oast
al
area
s (sm
all j
ettie
s are
O
K).
Plan
ting
unsu
itabl
e tre
es
(Nor
folk
pin
es, P
hoen
ix
palm
s).
Plan
ting
of tr
ees,
Hou
ses b
ack
form
co
astli
ne.
No
mon
ocul
ture
s or
inte
nsiv
e ho
rticu
lture
. Sy
mpa
thet
ic b
uild
ings
.
56
Wild
erne
ss, n
atur
al b
eaut
y.
Typi
cal o
f New
Zea
land
is
com
bina
tion
of se
a co
ast a
ll un
spoi
lt.
Cle
an w
ater
. N
o ru
bbis
h.
Coa
stal
. In
tere
stin
g.
Con
nota
tion
of h
olid
ays a
nd
happ
y m
emor
ies.
Indu
stria
l tid
al in
terf
ace.
H
ighl
y m
odifi
ed.
Man
mad
e st
ruct
ures
. La
ck o
f acc
ess e
ven
perc
eptio
n of
it,
not
invi
ting
or w
elco
min
g.
Cle
aran
ce o
f veg
etat
ion.
N
on sy
mpa
thet
ic
deve
lopm
ent.
Rub
bish
. Ex
otic
fore
stry
. M
an m
ade
stru
ctur
es.
Mar
inas
.
Plan
t sui
tabl
e co
asta
l sp
ecie
s. O
pen
acce
ss to
pub
lic.
Nee
d so
me
area
s of
deve
lopm
ent.
58
Nat
ural
wat
er b
odie
s. M
ix o
f veg
etat
ion.
Ex
tent
of m
odifi
catio
n.
Nar
row
rang
e of
land
use
s. Si
gnifi
cant
bui
ldin
g.
Smal
l sca
le d
otte
d th
roug
h In
trodu
ce p
redo
min
ant
nativ
e ve
geta
tion.
81
Dra
mat
ic la
ndfo
rms.
Lack
of m
odifi
catio
n.
Bro
ad o
pen
vist
as.
Lack
of n
ativ
e ve
geta
tion.
is
OK
. Ex
tract
ive
indu
strie
s. La
rge
scal
e aq
uacu
lture
. R
emov
al o
f nat
ive
vege
tatio
n.
Mod
ifica
tion
of w
ater
’s
edge
. La
rge
scal
e in
fras
truct
ure.
Mix
ing
land
use
s.
Com
bine
d Fa
ctor
2
Su
bjec
t N
o.
Tru
ly o
utst
andi
ng
Lea
st o
utst
andi
ng
Deg
rade
Im
prov
e
02
Com
bina
tion
of e
lem
ent.
N
ot o
verd
one
with
det
ail.
Pr
esen
ce o
f tre
es.
N
atur
e un
dist
urbe
d.
Bor
ing.
To
o m
uch
deve
lopm
ent.
Com
mer
cial
and
indu
stria
l de
velo
pmen
t.
All
deve
lopm
ent.
Bre
ak u
p m
onot
ony.
03
Tran
quil.
V
ery
limite
d si
gn o
f re
side
ntia
l dev
elop
men
t.
Nat
ural
farm
land
(with
bu
sh).
U
ndis
turb
ed.
Man
grov
e sw
amp
look
s rot
ten.
N
ot n
atur
al.
H
ouse
s nex
t to
beac
h.
Inva
des o
n be
ach
expe
rienc
e.
Subu
rbia
.
Too
muc
h de
velo
pmen
t.
Res
iden
tial d
evel
opm
ent,
indu
stria
l, co
mm
erci
al
deve
lopm
ent.
A
cou
ple
of h
ouse
s OK
Add
vib
ranc
y to
be
achf
ront
.
Publ
ic a
cces
s.
Plan
ting
of tr
ees.
06
. N
atur
al lo
ok.
C
ombi
natio
n of
land
and
w
ater
.
Peac
eful
to th
e m
ind.
Gre
at
vist
as
Mes
sy b
ush.
M
udfla
ts a
nd sa
nd.
D
ull l
ooki
ng.
M
essy
bea
ches
.
Res
iden
tial d
evel
opm
ent.
V
eget
atio
n re
mov
al.
Litte
r, po
llutio
n.
Res
orts
etc
.
Cle
anin
g be
ache
s.
Plan
ting
mor
e tre
es.
14
Ver
y st
ill, g
row
ing,
nic
e
Bui
lt th
ings
–ho
uses
, C
lean
up
ston
es o
r
82
scen
ery.
sh
eds,
fact
ory
wor
k, w
harf
sand
, fla
tten
area
. 15
C
lean
, cle
ar, n
ice
wat
er.
Com
bina
tion
of w
ater
and
tre
es.
Pl
ace
that
wou
ld b
e fu
n to
liv
e.
Plac
es fo
r rec
reat
ion.
Sa
fe p
lace
s for
recr
eatio
n.
Goo
d w
ildlif
e sp
ots.
G
ood
acce
ss.
Lack
of t
rees
.
Not
so n
ice
for r
ecre
atio
n (s
wim
min
g).
H
ouse
s.
Def
ores
tatio
n.
Slip
s. P
ollu
tion
of w
ater
by
any
mea
sure
.
Rub
bish
. N
o de
velo
pmen
t bey
ond
rura
l.
Som
e st
ruct
ures
OK
.
Plan
ting
of tr
ees f
or
shad
e an
d to
pre
vent
sl
ips.
42
Peac
eful
. N
ativ
e ve
geta
tion.
B
oats
in tr
anqu
il se
tting
. N
atur
al st
ate.
A
ctiv
e la
ndsc
ape.
C
ombi
natio
n of
land
scap
e el
emen
ts.
Ani
mal
s. Pr
esen
ce o
f wat
er.
Rug
gedn
ess o
f bus
h.
Indu
stria
l dev
elop
men
t nex
t to
wat
er.
Low
tide
app
eara
nce
of m
udfla
ts.
Pow
er li
nes.
Poor
ly m
aint
aine
d (n
othi
ng
brea
king
it u
p).
Uns
ympa
thet
ic c
oast
al
deve
lopm
ent.
Dea
d ve
geta
tion
in 2
(f
oreg
roun
d).
Indu
stria
l dev
elop
men
t on
wat
er.
Scou
ring
land
with
not
ve
geta
tion.
Po
wer
line
s. Lo
ss o
f veg
etat
ion.
In
appr
opria
te
deve
lopm
ent.
Serv
ices
und
ergr
ound
. Pl
antin
g of
tree
s. C
lust
ered
de
velo
pmen
t. In
tens
ive
indu
stria
l de
velo
pmen
t in
low
qu
ality
land
scap
es.
Mai
ntai
n pu
blic
acc
ess
to b
each
es.
63
Ver
satil
e.
Sea
view
. G
reen
. N
atur
al.
Pow
er li
nes.
Can
’t w
alk
arou
nd it
(18)
. To
o m
any
ston
es.
Pow
er li
nes.
Rub
bish
. N
othi
ng m
uch
83
Appendix 2 Q Sort Recording Sheet
ARC Landscape Study
Subject No.: Date: Location:
Coast Estuary Hill Lowland Combined
Please order the photographs from those which represent the most outstanding natural landscapes to
those that least fit this description
Please identify those landscapes which you regard as truly outstanding. (Choose as many or as few as you like). What are the characteristics / qualities that make these landscapes truly outstanding? What changes or modifications would degrade these outstanding landscapes?
MOST OUTSTANDING
84
RESPONDENT’S DETAILS Please could you provide the following information: Gender Male
Female
Age Under 20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 Over 60
Ethnicity European NZ Maori Polynesian Asian Other Occupation: __________________________________
Where Do You Live? ___________________________
(Suburb/Town/Area)
How Long Have You Lived in the Auckland Region? ________ NOTE:
This information will only be used for Analysis.
You will not be identified individually. Purpose
The purpose of the exercise is to identify the outstanding natural landscapes of the Auckland Region.
Outstanding natural landscapes should be reasonably self apparent and reflect values held by the community at large.
85
Appendix 3 Factors by Ethnicity for each Landform Qsort
Factor Coastal 1 2 3 -3 NL Total
European 19 12 3 34 Maori 1 2 1 4
Polynesian 0 1 0 2 1 4 Asian 2 2 1 0 0 5 Other 0 0 0
Total 22 17 2 2 4 47 Estuary
European 14 10 24 Maori 1 3 4
Polynesian 1 2 1 4 Asian 3 1 4 Other 2 1 3
Total 21 17 1 39 Lowlands
European 21 2 0 1 24 Maori 1 2 1 4
Polynesian 1 1 2 4 Asian 0 4 0 4 Other 2 1 0 3
Total 25 10 3 1 39 Hills
European 9 7 8 3 27 Maori 3 1 1 5
Polynesian 1 1 0 1 3 Asian 1 2 1 4 Other 0 0 0 0
Total 14 11 10 4 39 Combined
European 34 9 1 44 Maori 4 1 1 6
Polynesian 1 3 4 Asian 0 5 5 Other 3 3 6
Total 42 21 2 65
86
Appendix 4 Locations of Photographs
BM A01268-017 jlg 05-11-02 pmf Page 1
COMBINED Code Location LT OT A C1 Paparata Hunua Valley Dairy/Pasture/Hedgerows 2.55 pm 60 mm
C2 Morley Rd Totara and Kahikatea in horticultural field with hedgerows
3.30 pm 50 mm
C3 Heads Road Deep dune valley system 2.55 pm 28 mm
C4 Omaha Beach Pastoral, semi bush clad coastal headland and beach (East Coast)
10.40 am 35 mm
C5 Hamilton’s Gap Sandstone and mature dune system. Black sand, West Coast beach
4 pm 50 mm 28 mm
C6 Okura River Estuarine/mangrove bush. Sandstone rock shelving. 2.35 pm 40 mm
C7 Whatipu Road Ranges and pasture harbour 3.10 pm 65 mm
C8 Burnside Rd (near Ardmore) Kahikatea stand in pasture 4.30 pm 80 mm
C9 Waikopi River/east Salt marsh / Rural subdivision 10.50 am 40 mm
C10 Maraetai Beach
Peri-urban fringe with pine plantation and pasture to the shore. East Coast beach
10.10 am 60 mm
C11 McNol Rd near Clevedon Eucalyptus and pine plantation 5.15 pm 35 mm
C12 Milford Beach – eastwards Urban, coastal beach 8.30 am 28-50
mm
C13 Queens Wharf Inner City (urban) harbour edge
12.15-12.45 pm 35 mm
C14 Muriwai Beach (south) Dune system and ecology. West Coast black sand beach
9.05 am 50 mm
C15 Awhitu Regional Park Harbour beach and headland – bushclad stratafied sandstone
3.50 pm 40 mm
C16 Huia Dam Inland water body and bush 2.45 pm 50 mm C17 Bethells Road Bush residential subdivision 3.50 pm 40 mm
C18 Manukau Harbour Harbour/estuarine industrial / on volcanic outcrops
4.00 pm 80 mm
C19 Awhitu Rd Massive dune system and lake 11.35 am 65 mm
C20 Ramarama Horticulture 10.45 am 40 mm
C21 Rosewood Crescent (off Linwood) Equestrian subdivision 8.30 am 28 mm
C22 Journeys End Rd Pasture (open) in dune topology 1.50 pm 80 mm
C23 Te Arai Point Rd Remains of native bush, pine, pasture 3.10 pm 80 mm
C24 Leigh Rd Both pastoral and semi clad coastal headlands 12.10 pm 60 mm
BM A01268-017 jlg 05-11-02 pmf Page 2
COMBINED Code Location LT OT A
C25 Raukura Point Coastal headlands, bush clad and small bays – East Coast 11 am 28 mm
C26 Awhitu Rd Climactic wetland 9.30 am 28 mm
C27 Wenderholm Regional Park Bush clad, prominent coastal headland 9.50 am 40 mm
C28 Linwood Road Equestrian and horticultural interface 9 am 28 mm
C29 Waihihi Bay Peri-urban grassed east coast stone beach 12 noon 28 mm
C30 Wharf Rd, Port Albert Estuarine/pasture 2.40 pm 80 mm
BM A01268-017 jlg 05-11-02 pmf Page 3
HILL COUNTRY AND RANGES Code Location LT OT A
H1 McNol Rd near Clevedon Eucalyptus and Pine Plantation 5.15 pm 35 mm
H2 Huia Dam Inland water body and bush 2.45 pm 50 mm H3 Bethells Rd Bush residential subdivision 3.50 pm 40 mm
H4 Rosewood Cres (off Linwood) Equestrian subdivision 8.30 am 28 mm
H5 Pakiri Rd Denuded of native cover 1.15 pm 50 mm H6 Bombay cnr of Mill Rd Horticultural 2.45 pm 60 mm
H7 Trig Rd Open pasture, manuka bush, pine plantation on peninsula 11.45 am 70 mm
H8 Beaver Rd
Intensive mix of rural residential. Shelter belt, market gardening, native remains
12.35 pm 80 mm
H9 Vaughans Rd Peri-urban bush gully 9.45 am 60 mm H10 Mangawhai Rd Bush and pasture, pine mix 11.30 am 80 mm
H11 Sharps Rd (Snells/Sandspit) Pines in Pasture 9.05 am 40 mm
H12 Waiuku Rd Horticulture pasture interface 3.05 pm 60 mm
H13 Paparata Hunua Valley Dairy / pasture / hedgerows 2.55 pm 60 mm H14 Heads Road Deep dune valley system 2.55 pm 28 mm H15 Whatipu Road Ranges and pasture harbour 3.10 pm 65 mm
H16 Te Arai Pt Rd Remains of native bush, pine, pasture 3.10 pm 80 mm
H17 Awhitu Rd Native mixed remnant bush in paddock / pasture
H18 Lone Kauri Rd Bush and pasture 11.30 am 80 mm
H19 Route 1 south of Thompson Rd Modified formal pasture 9.30 am 55 mm
H20 East Rd (Snells Beach) Regeneration of bush from pasture 3.30 pm 35 mm
H21 Kohekohe Rd Farm in dune scape with dune exposed in backdrop 11.35 am 65 mm
H22 Vaughan Rd Rural subdivision 10 am 40 mm
H23 Awhitu Rd Dune topography, open pasture with stands of exotic and native
9.30 am 80 mm
H24 Ararimu Rd, Hunua Hill country patchwork landuse 3.30 pm 60 mm
H25 Forest Hill Rd Orchards and fines / urban 1.15 pm 65 mm H26 Burt Rd Pasture with bush 4.30 pm 70 mm
H27 Awhitu Rd to Cochrane’s Gap
Gully system with native remnants 11 am 60 mm
H28 Scenic Drive Ranges 1.40 pm 80 mm
H29 Duck Creek Exotics and pasture, shelter belts / pine plantation backdrop
11.15 am 60 mm
H30 Heads Road Deep valley dune system 3.05 pm 28 mm
BM A01268-017 jlg 05-11-02 pmf Page 4
COASTAL Code Location LT OT A
B1 Army Bay (Whangaparaoa) Sandstone coastal semi bush clad headland and beach
4.35 pm 80 mm
B2 Snells Beach Peri-urban coastal bush clad headland and beach 1.40 pm 45 mm
B3 Tawharanui Regional Park Pastoral, semi bush clad, east coast sandstone beach 2.15 pm 45 mm
B4 Maraetai Beach
Peri-urban fringe with pine plantation and pasture to the shore. East Coast beach
10 am 60 mm
B5 Muriwai Beach (south) Dune system and ecology. West Coast black sand beach
9.05 am 50 mm
B6 Omaha Beach Pastoral, semi bush clad coastal headland and beach (East Coast)
10.40 am 35 mm
B7 Mission Bay Harbour urban beach / Pohutukawa 2 pm 40 mm
B8 Hamilton’s Gap Sandstone and mature dune system. Black sand West Coast beach
4 pm 28 mm
B9 Bucklands Beach Urban beach. East coast shell 9.10 am 60 mm
B10 Matingarahi Bay Stone beach, coastal (east) bush and pasture. Sandstone headland
11.45 am 28 mm
B11 Waiwera Bush clad prominent coastal headland 9 am 50 mm
B12 Tawharanui Regional Park Bushclad / pasture. Gentle sloping coastal edge 2.45 pm 60 mm
B13 Kaiaua Settlement on bay Urban shell beach. East coast lowland 12.50 pm 28 mm
B14 Manly Beach, Whangaparaoa
Peri-urban / bushclad / pastoral coastal headland 3.20 pm 80 mm
B15 Mathesons Bay, Leigh Coastal rock crops and shelving. Bushclad coastal headlands
1 pm 60 mm
B16 Matakana Harbour, Sandspit
Rural residential semi bush clad and exotics, headland 1.30 pm 50 mm
B17 Karekare Beach
Evolving dune system and vegetation. Granite rock cliff. West Coast black sand beach
1.55 pm 28 mm
B18 Kariotaiki Beach Dune / Flax / Sandstone. West Coast black sand 11.15 am 45 mm
B19 Umupuia Bay Dairy/pasture to cliff edge / rocky shell grav beach, low lying
10.10 am 28 mm
BM A01268-017 jlg 05-11-02 pmf Page 5
COASTAL Code Location LT OT A
B20 Howick Beach Urban East Coast beach. Sandstone cliff in native and exotic mix vegetation
9.25 am 65 mm
B21 Te Haruhi Bay Gentle sloping headland / pasture sandstone cliff edge
5.05 pm 28 mm
B22 Black Rock Beach Urban coastal beach (volcanic) 8.05 am 38 mm
B23 Pakiri Beach Pasture headland with remnant bush. Beach/dune system
12.05 pm 65 mm
B24 Raukura Point Coastal headlands, bush clad and small bays – East Coast 11 am 28 mm
B25 Kawakawa Bay Low lying shell beach with manuka clad backdrop / headland
10.45 am 28 mm
B26 Milford Beach – eastwards Urban, coastal beach 8.30 am 28-50
mm
B27 Wenderholm Regional Park Bush clad prominent coastal headland 9.50 am 40 mm
B28 Waihihi Bay Peri-urban grassed east coast stone beach 12 noon 28 mm
B29 From Magazine Bay south Sandstone and grey stone mix / pasture / Pohutukawa exotic mix. Coastal beach
12.05 pm 50 mm
B30 Mahurangi Regional Park Rully bush clad coastal headland and beach 9.30 am 45 mm
BM A01268-017 jlg 05-11-02 pmf Page 6
LOWLAND Code Location LT OT A L1 Whatipu Saltmarsh / wetland 3.30 pm 60 mm L2 Lake Kereta Inland lake, pasture, manuka 11.30 am 28 mm L3 South Kaipara Heads Rd Saltmarsh / harbour 11.30 am 40 mm L4 Hanga wetland Wetland / bush 4.15 pm 60 mm
L5 Lake Rotoiti Inland water lake and pasture 10.50 am 50 mm
L6 Orua Bay Rd Lowland, kauri stand in pasture 2.30 pm 50 mm
L7 Ramarama Horticulture 10.45 am 40 mm
L8 Burnside Rd (near Ardmore) Kahikatea stand in pasture 4.30 pm 80 mm
L9 South Kaipara Heads Exotic pine / manuka and wetland remains and pasture 11.10 am 40 mm
L10 Awhitu Regional Park Fresh water wetland 2.30 pm 60 mm
L11 Pakiri Block Rd Pasture, Kahikatea bush / shelter belt 1.55 pm 80 mm
L12 Awhitu Rd Massive dune system and lake 11.35 am 65 mm
L13 Kaipara Coastal Highway Saltmarsh, mangrove pasture 9.25 am 45 mm
L14 Rahukiri Rd Lowland sand mature dune system, bushed 1.05 pm 35 mm
L15 Matakana Rd Lowland pasture, mangrove, pine 12.30 pm 45 mm
L16 Valley Rd Intimate rural residential mix with Kahikatea stands 1.25 pm 55 mm
L17 Linwood Rd Equestrian and horticultural interface 9 am 25 mm
L18 Wellsford Valley Rd Rural Residential 11.05 am 60 mm
L19 Journeys End Rd Pasture (open) in dune topology 1.50 pm 80 mm
L20 Linwood Rd Equestrian pasture 8.20 am 40 mm L21 Liang Rd Horticulture and coastal 8.35 am 28 mm
L22 Morley Rd Totara and Kahikatea in horticultural fields with hedgerows
3.30 pm 50 mm
L23 Kaipara Coastal Highway Lowland pasture Kahikatea stand 9.15 am
L24 Whitford – Maraetai Rd Lowland estuarine pasture 10.50 am 28 mm
L25 Clark Rd Patchwork transitional landuse / coastal interface 8.40 am 80 mm
L26 Muriwai Rd Gentle pasture, pine and manuka 10.15 am 65 mm
L27 Liang Rd Pasture and coastal interface 8.35 am 50 mm
L28 Kaipara Coastal Highway Lowland pasture, remnant wetland 10.30 am 80 mm
L29 Route 16 to Helensville Glasshouse in rural landscape 10.45 am 28 mm
BM A01268-017 jlg 05-11-02 pmf Page 7
LOWLAND Code Location LT OT A L30 Awhitu Rd Climactic wetland 9.30 am 28 mm
BM A01268-017 jlg 05-11-02 pmf Page 8
HARBOUR / ESTUARINE Code Location LT OT A
E1 Okura Estuary Estuarine / bush to water’s edge 8.50 am 38 mm
E2 Mangere Bridge boat ramp Urban estuary in lave flow geological landscape 9.50 am 35 mm
E3 Otahuhu Creek South Urban estuary 10.55 am 35 mm
E4 Big Bay (south) Sandstone cliffs / pasture. Baches and Pohutukawa and Pine mix
10.25 am 40 mm
E5 Te Kawau Point Beach Harbour beach and vegetated headland 12.30 pm 40 mm
E6 Huia Dam Inland water body and bush 2.45 pm 50 mm
E7 Manukau Harbour Harbour/estuarine. Industrial / on volcanic outcrops
4.00 pm 80 mm
E8 Beachlands Marina Coastal shell beach. Exotic/mangrove mix 11.05 am 28 mm
E9 Okura River Estuarine/mangrove bush. Sandstone rock shelving 2.35 pm 40 mm
E10 Herne Bay Urban harbour. Coastal edge 3 pm 28 mm
E11 Te Atatu Peninsula Urban saltmarsh wetland 3.50 pm 28 mm
E12 Waikopi River / east Saltmarsh / Rural subdivision 10.50 am 40 mm
E13 Homestead Bay Scotts Landing
Islands in harbour / coastal / bush clad and pasture 12.45 pm 55 mm
E14 Papakura Bridge River/estuary 5.35 pm 40 mm
E15 Waikiri Creek Shoreline mangrove, manuka on sandspit 12.55 pm 50 mm
E16 Wharf Rd, Port Albert Estuarine/pasture 2.40 pm 80 mm
E17 Waiwera River Estuarine, mangrove bush to water 8.45 am 35 mm
E18 Te Kapa Estuary Pasture / exotics 12.45 pm 45 mm
E19 French Bay Urban harbour beach, bushclad headland 1 pm 60 mm
E20 Te Whau Point Urban coastal headland / native/exotic mix vegetation
3.00 pm 28 mm
E21 Papakura Bridge River/estuary inland 8.10 am 40 mm
E22 Leigh Rd Both pastoral and semi clad coastal headlands 12.10 pm 60 mm
E23 Orua Bay Native and pine headland with baches 2.20 pm 28 mm
E24 Queens Wharf Inner city (urban) harbour edge
12.15-12.45 pm 35 mm
E25 Little Huia Road Peri-urban in ranges on harbour. Rock shelving 3.10 pm 28 mm
E26 Awhitu Regional Park Harbour beach and headland – bushclad stratafield sandstone
3.50 pm 40 mm
BM A01268-017 jlg 05-11-02 pmf Page 9
HARBOUR / ESTUARINE Code Location LT OT A
E27 Whau River Urban estuary / mangrove / pine 3.30 pm 28 mm
E28 Devonport Wharf / Waterfront Urban Harbour Edge 11.30-
11.45 am 28mm-40mm
E29 Milford Beach – westwards Urban coastal beach 7.45-8
am 28-80 mm
E30 Herne Bay Urban harbour coastal beach 3.05 pm 28 mm
Auckland Regional Landscape Assessment for
Auckland Regional Council
Stage Three
Delineation of the Outstanding Natural Landscapes of the Region
prepared by Boffa Miskell
In association with Stephen Brown Environments Limited
and Lincoln University
August 2004
01268-034 rdl 30-06-03 dh Stage 3 Page 1
Executive Summary
The Stage Three process of this Regional Landscape Assessment Review Project has involved
translating the factors identified through the Stage Two public preference process onto the ground to
spatially define the outstanding natural landscapes of the Region (Section 6(b) RM Act 1991).
This final Stage of the project has involved in-house desktop mapping of areas considered likely to be
outstanding natural landscapes using the considerable local knowledge and experience of the project
team members (Stephen Brown, John Goodwin and Rachel de Lambert) using the NZMS 260
topographical maps followed by extensive ground survey, verification and delineation of boundaries
in the field. The areas identified have then been transferred to digital GIS format compatible with the
Auckland Regional Council’s GIS database. Both hard copy and electronic versions of the maps have
been provided.
The initial brief for the delineation of the outstanding natural landscapes of the Region related to the
mainland area within the Auckland Regional Council’s jurisdiction, the brief was subsequently
extended to also cover the islands of the Hauraki Gulf from Kawau in the north to Ponui in the south
and extending out to Great Barrier Island.
In total, ninety two (92) numbered areas have been identified as outstanding natural landscapes within
the region. These are delineated on the attached maps and recorded on the field record sheets also
attached.
01268-034 rdl 30-06-03 dh Stage 3 Page 2
Introduction
The outcome of the Stage Two public preference process is summarised in the Stage Two report
(dated May 2003) as follows:
“Results show that there are two distinctive ways in which the public evaluates the qualities
of natural landscapes in the Auckland Region. These are described in the report as ‘factors’
due to the method by which they were derived. The two factors are broadly consistent across
the different landscapes in the region and account for a very large proportion of the
responses. In the case of hill country landscapes, the evaluation is slightly more complex.
Based on these factors, the report identifies the types of landscape that respondents describe
as truly outstanding.
The first factor characterises outstanding natural landscapes in terms of ‘wild nature’. This
factor values natural landscape most highly when there is no evidence of human presence,
modification or management. The landscapes that are selected as ‘truly outstanding’ are
those which are closest to the pristine environments in the land types under consideration.
The second factor also values many pristine environments, but in addition evaluates some
types of modified environment as being outstanding natural landscapes. This represents a
‘cultured nature’ position in which the presence of humans undertaking recreational activity,
or some forms of low intensity production within a landscape, is considered to be consistent
with it being an outstanding natural landscape. The main indicator of this factor is that
landscapes which include a picturesque mix of bush and extensive pastoral agriculture on
hills and lowlands are highly valued, whilst relatively unmodified salt marsh and wetland are
less highly valued (as being unattractive and somewhat inaccessible). Hence for Factor 2
‘cultured nature’, not all pristine environments are recognised as having potential to be an
outstanding natural landscape, whilst some partially modified landscapes are regarded as
truly outstanding.
When the photographs identified as truly outstanding by each factor in each type of landscape
are combined, an overall pattern of public response can be identified, with a reasonably high
degree of consensus about the characteristics of landscapes that warrant the designation of
being ‘outstanding natural landscapes’. They include pristine and relatively unmodified
coastal environments, estuaries and harbours; unmodified wetlands with standing water;
01268-034 rdl 30-06-03 dh Stage 3 Page 3
lowland bush; and picturesque or open hill country that includes a significant proportion of
bush or bush remnants, with minimal presence of human artefacts or buildings.”
The Stage Three objective was then to translate the factors identified through the public preference
process spatially across the region’s landscape. The summary cards for the factors in each of the four
landscape types - coastal, harbour and estuarine, hill country and lowland, as well as the combined set
of images - were used to assist in this physical mapping process. The summary card images are
attached (refer Appendix 1).
Methodology
The methodology adopted involved a first phase of desktop mapping direct onto the 1:50,000 NZMS
260 series topographical maps in the office using the visual prompts of the outstanding natural
landscape factor summary sheets and the considerable local knowledge of the region’s landscape held
by project team members Stephen Brown, John Goodwin and Rachel de Lambert who between them
have some 50 years detailed professional working knowledge of the region’s landscape.
Having undertaken this first cut mapping exercise, an extensive field checking process was
undertaken with Stephen Brown and Rachel de Lambert driving roads within the region over some
seven days to identify, confirm and verify the location and boundaries of the outstanding natural
landscapes consistent with the identified factors. The outstanding natural landscape factor summary
sheets were kept on hand as a reference and reminder of the desired attributes. In addition, following
the extension of the brief to include the islands of the Hauraki Gulf these were travelled by road in the
case of Waiheke and Great Barrier islands and observed from the sea in relation to all of the islands of
the inner Gulf.
A standard record sheet template was prepared in advance of the first field checking and completed in
the field for each outstanding natural landscape delineated (summary attached, refer Appendix II).
During the field survey some areas identified as potentially possessing the factor attributes at the
desktop delineation phase were excluded as outstanding natural landscapes. This exclusion occurred
for a number of reasons but most frequently related to the lack of coherence in the pattern of land
cover and land use. In addition, some areas not initially identified in the desktop assessment were
identified in the field and included on the final field maps.
01268-034 rdl 30-06-03 dh Stage 3 Page 4
During the field assessment, some areas were also identified as comprising the right range of factor
attributes but were considered too small in physical area terms to be included within the regional
assessment. Such areas have significance at a District level but were not felt sufficiently large to
contribute to the regional landscape.
In addition it was noted by the field survey team that in relation to the less modified islands of the
Hauraki Gulf, such as Great Barrier, that the mapping process tended to involve the exclusion of those
areas not comprising the attributes of outstanding natural landscapes whereas on the mainland and
more modified and / or inhabited islands, such as Rakino and Waiheke, the delineation involved
defining discrete areas of outstanding natural landscape within a wider landscape that did not display
those characteristics.
Following field assessment the maps were checked by Stephen Brown and Rachel de Lambert and
then converted to electronic format on GIS at which point they were checked again for accuracy of
translation. This electronic mapping has been undertaken to be fully compatible with the Auckland
Regional Council’s (ARC) GIS database, enabling unhindered transfer of the data from Boffa Miskell
to the ARC.
The Region’s Outstanding Natural Landscapes
Of the ninety-two (92) outstanding natural landscapes delineated the majority, forty-one (41) are
within the hill country landscape type with fifteen (15) being harbour/estuary, eleven (11) coast five
(5) lowland and fourteen (14) island areas. In part this numbering is skewed by the fact that many of
the “hill country” areas include areas of lowland or extend to include the adjacent harbour/estuary or
coastline. It should also be noted that the island areas comprise a combination of all landscape types,
they have been recorded on a separate ‘islands’ sheet.
The outstanding natural landscapes identified on the mainland area of the region cover some 80,000
hectares. This translates to some 16% of the mainland landmass of the region, not all of this area is in
private landownership as significant areas of outstanding landscape are held as public lands.
The island areas have been left out of this analysis as they tend to skew the statistics due to the large
areas of both Kawau (approx 1900ha) and Great Barrier (approx 41,000ha) that are identified as
outstanding natural landscapes. Again much of these areas are held in public ownership.
01268-034 rdl 30-06-03 dh Stage 3 Page 5
Dealing again with the mainland area a comparison with the 1984 study and areas included in the
Regional Policy Statement (RPS) compared to the areas identified through this updated study can be
summarised as follows:
Area in Category 6 or 7 RPS: 49,000 ha
Area in Category 5 RPS: 69,000 ha
Combined Area 5, 6, 7 RPS: 118,000 ha
Area 2003/4 Outstanding Natural Landscapes: 80,000 ha
Difference 2003/4 ONL to 6 & 7 (RPS): 31,000 ha
Difference 2003/4 ONL to 5, 6 & 7 (RPS): -38,000 ha
Note these areas do not include the outstanding natural landscapes on the islands of the Hauraki Gulf
as these were not included within the original 1984 assessment.
The 2003/4 outstanding natural landscapes are mapped in the following six figures, three comprising
the mainland areas and three the islands. Also mapped is the spatial comparison of the mainland RPS
5, 6 and 7 landscape sensitivity rating areas with those now identified as outstanding natural
landscapes included in the 2003/4 study.
The primary differences in these areas relate to the inclusion of the “cultured nature” factor which has
seen a widening of the outstanding landscapes where “the presence of humans undertaking
recreational activity, or some forms of low intensity production within a landscape, is considered to
be consistent with it being an outstanding landscape… landscapes which include a picturesque mix of
bush and extensive pastoral agriculture on hills and lowlands are highly valued…” (page 6 Stage 2
report)
The inclusion of this factor explains not only the widening of the areas delineated as outstanding
between the 1984 and 2003/4 studies, but also the predominance of this extension in the hill country
environments of the Region.
01268-034 rdl 30-06-03 dh Stage 3 Page 6
Recommendations
The next step in the process of updating the regional landscape resource knowledge within the
Auckland Region relates to the updating of the Regional Policy Statement (RPS), which currently
contains the maps that related to the earlier study(s) and policy relevant to that earlier understanding.
Given the public’s widening perception of more managed – cultured nature – landscapes as
outstanding natural landscapes, it will be necessary when incorporating the new maps into the
Region’s statutory documents to also prepare new policy that recognises both the ‘wild nature’ and
‘cultured nature’ perspectives held by the community in relation to outstanding natural landscapes.
The current policy that addresses the outstanding natural landscapes (those areas identified as having
a landscape sensitivity rating of 6 or 7) as well as that related to the ‘regionally significant landscapes’
(landscape sensitivity rating 5) is set out below.
“6.3.4 To maintain the overall quality and diversity of character of the landscapes of the
Auckland Region.
6.4.19 Policies: Landscape The following policies and methods give effect to Objective 6.3-4
1. Subdivision, use and development of land and related natural and physical resources
shall be controlled so that in areas identified in Map Series 2 and 3:
(i) the quality of outstanding landscapes (landscape rating 6 and 7) is protected
by avoiding adverse effects on the character, aesthetic value and integrity of
the landscape unit as a whole;
(ii) outstanding landscapes with a sensitivity rating of 6 or 7 are protected by
avoiding subdivision, use and development which cannot be visually
accommodated within the landscape without adversely affecting the
character, aesthetic value and integrity of the landscape unit as a whole;
(iii) the quality of regionally significant landscapes (landscape rating 5) is
protected by avoiding adverse effects on the elements, features and patterns
which contribute to the quality of the landscape unit;
(iv) regionally significant landscapes with a sensitivity rating of 5 are protected
by ensuring that any subdivision, use and development can be visually
accommodated within the landscape without adversely affecting the elements,
features and patterns which contribute to the quality of the landscape unit.
01268-034 rdl 30-06-03 dh Stage 3 Page 7
2. In those rural areas not rated as being outstanding or regionally significant
landscapes and in urban areas, the elements, features and patterns which contribute
to the character and quality of the landscape and to its amenity value, or which help
to accommodate the visual effects of subdivision, use and development, shall be
protected by avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects on them.
3. Subject to Policy 6.4.19-1 above, subdivision, use and development on regionally
significant ridgelines shall be controlled so that there are no significant adverse
effects, including cumulative effects, on the landscape quality and integrity of the
ridgelines.
4. The views of volcanic cones, which are indicated in Map Series 4, are to be
preserved, and intrusion into the defined viewing shafts by buildings or structures
shall be avoided.
5. The use or development of land and related natural and physical resources is to be
controlled so that the visibility of volcanic cones is maintained or enhanced.
6.4.21 Reasons
…The intention of the policies is to protect the aesthetic and visual quality, character
and value of the major and unique landscapes from inappropriate subdivision, use
and development. Policy 6.4.19.1 does this by requiring the avoidance of adverse
effects on the whole landscape unit in outstanding landscape areas. This recognises
that the landscape value of these units is derived from a combination of qualities and
values which together give them an outstanding rating. These qualities and values
usually mean that the units are also extremely sensitive to the visual effects of use and
development. In Regionally Significant Landscapes, the emphasis is on the protection
of the elements, features and patterns which contribute to the quality of the landscape
unit (Policy 6.4.19-1 (iii) and (iv))…
…The individual factors which contribute to the quality and sensitivity of both
outstanding and regionally significant landscape vary throughout the Region,
depending on the particular landscape. These factors include the presence of
prominent ridgelines and slopes, the pattern of vegetation, particularly indigenous
vegetation and the presence of bodies of water. Further information on this is
contained in Appendix F – Landscape Evaluation Methodology.”
01268-034 rdl 30-06-03 dh Stage 3 Page 8
Clearly with incorporation of the ninety two new outstanding natural landscapes as delineated through
this updated landscape assessment study, it will be necessary to develop new policy that takes account
of the wild nature and cultured nature views that have contributed to the identification of the Region’s
outstanding natural landscapes.
01268-034 rdl 30-06-03 dh Stage 3 Page i
Appendix I Outstanding Landscape Factor Summary Sheets
Fact
or 1
Fa
ctor
2
Shar
ed O
NL
bet
wee
n C
ombi
ned
Fact
ors 1
and
2
Fact
or 1
Fa
ctor
2
Shar
ed O
NL
bet
wee
n E
stua
ry F
acto
rs 1
and
2
Fact
or 1
Fa
ctor
2
Shar
ed O
NL
bet
wee
n C
oast
al F
acto
rs 1
and
2
Fact
or 1
Fa
ctor
2
Shar
ed O
NL
bet
wee
n L
owla
nds F
acto
rs 1
and
2
Shar
ed O
NL
bet
wee
n H
ills F
acto
rs 1
, 2 a
nd 3
Fact
or 1
Fa
ctor
2
Fa
ctor
3
01268-034 rdl 30-06-03 dh Stage 3 Page ii
Appendix II Outstanding Landscapes
Field Record Summary
1
TAB
LE O
NE:
OU
TSTA
ND
ING
NA
TUR
AL
LAN
DSC
APE
AR
EAS
– SU
MM
AR
Y IN
FOR
MA
TIO
N
Are
a N
umbe
r Lo
catio
n N
ame
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Des
crip
tors
A
dditi
onal
Info
rmat
ion
Key
ON
L El
emen
ts, F
eatu
res
&
Patte
rns
Rod
ney
Dis
tric
t (W
est &
Nor
th W
est)
2 A
rarim
u V
alle
y W
est
Hill
Cou
ntry
R
elat
ivel
y hi
gh re
lief.
Sig
nific
ant a
reas
of m
atur
ing
vege
tatio
n.
Onl
y lo
w le
vels
of b
uilt
mod
ifica
tion
(hou
ses)
.
Rem
nant
, reg
ener
atin
g in
dige
nous
ve
geta
tion,
with
som
e yo
ung
rogu
e pi
ne.
Veg
etat
ion
runn
ing
dow
n to
st
ream
cor
ridor
.
Ret
entio
n of
indi
geno
us
vege
tatio
n re
info
rcin
g to
pogr
aphy
. M
aint
aini
ng lo
w le
vels
of b
uilt
mod
ifica
tion.
3 Ta
ylor
s R
d S
outh
of H
elen
sville
H
ill C
ount
ry
Rel
ativ
ely
high
relie
f. S
igni
fican
t are
as o
f mat
urin
g ve
geta
tion
in p
ocke
ts.
Onl
y lo
w le
vels
of b
uilt
mod
ifica
tion
(hou
ses)
.
Slo
pes
runn
ing
dow
n to
stre
am
corr
idor
s, w
ith g
ood
pock
ets
of
rege
nera
ting
& re
mna
nt fo
rest
(k
auri)
. A
reas
of m
ore
open
and
de
velo
ped/
mod
ified
land
exc
lude
d fro
m O
NL
Uni
t.
Ret
entio
n of
indi
geno
us
vege
tatio
n in
pat
tern
s re
late
d to
un
derly
ing
topo
grap
hy.
4 La
ke K
eret
a Lo
wla
nd
Lake
& w
etla
nd.
Und
evel
oped
mar
gins
. S
igni
fican
t rem
nant
in
dige
nous
veg
etat
ion.
Lo
w le
vels
of d
evel
opm
ent.
Coh
esiv
e pa
ttern
(tie
s to
geth
er v
isua
lly in
rela
tion
to to
pogr
aphy
).
ON
L de
fined
by
pine
s on
coa
stal
si
de a
nd b
y pa
stur
e ar
ound
bus
h re
mna
nts.
Low
leve
l of r
esid
entia
l de
velo
pmen
t tha
t is
subs
ervi
ent,
tuck
ed in
to th
e hu
mm
ocky
dun
e la
ndfo
rm/b
ush
rem
nant
s.
Ret
entio
n of
dun
e la
ke/w
etla
nd
land
scap
e an
d re
mna
nt
vege
tatio
n w
ith lo
w le
vels
of
subs
ervi
ent d
evel
opm
ent
(hou
ses,
road
s, in
frast
ruct
ure)
.
2
Are
a N
umbe
r Lo
catio
n N
ame
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Des
crip
tors
A
dditi
onal
Info
rmat
ion
Key
ON
L El
emen
ts, F
eatu
res
&
Patte
rns
5 La
kes
Oto
toa
&
Kuw
akat
ai
Low
land
La
kes
and
wet
land
s.
Und
evel
oped
mar
gins
. S
igni
fican
t rem
nant
in
dige
nous
veg
etat
ion.
Lo
w le
vels
of d
evel
opm
ent.
Coh
esiv
e pa
ttern
.
Lake
s an
d th
eir c
onte
xt o
f ve
geta
tion,
incl
udin
g re
gene
ratin
g in
dige
nous
fore
st, e
xten
ds o
ver
ridge
line
to in
ner h
arbo
ur in
are
a of
P
atau
oa C
reek
. A
roun
d de
er fa
rm m
ore
exot
ic
vege
tatio
n an
d hi
gher
leve
l of
deve
lopm
ent,
but c
onsi
sten
t with
m
ore
mod
ified
pas
tora
l/tre
ed
land
scap
es id
entif
ied
as
outs
tand
ing.
)
Ret
entio
n of
dun
e la
ke/w
etla
nd
land
scap
e an
d re
mna
nt
vege
tatio
n w
ith lo
w le
vels
of
subs
ervi
ent d
evel
opm
ent a
s w
ell
as m
ore
mod
ified
pas
tora
l and
ve
geta
ted
land
scap
e.
6 P
apak
anui
Spi
t –W
aion
ui In
let
Har
bour
&
Est
uary
S
outh
Kai
para
Hea
d du
nela
nd, P
apak
anui
san
d sp
it an
d W
aion
ui In
let.
ON
L is
def
ined
by
edge
of W
oodh
ill Fo
rest
(pin
es) a
nd g
radu
al
trans
ition
from
maj
or d
unes
into
the
low
er p
rofil
e du
nela
nd o
f Ran
gitir
a B
each
.
Ret
entio
n of
rem
ote
natu
ral
dune
land
.
7 R
angi
tira
Bea
ch
(Nor
th o
f Mur
iwai
) C
oast
al
Bea
ch a
bove
MH
WS
and
co
ntig
uous
dun
elan
d.
Def
ined
on
land
war
d si
de b
y pi
ne
plan
tatio
n an
d at
the
coas
t by
the
trans
ition
into
the
long
rela
tivel
y st
raig
ht p
rofil
e of
Mur
iwai
Bea
ch.
Ret
entio
n of
rem
ote
beac
h en
viro
nmen
t and
dun
elan
d ba
ckdr
op.
8 H
ills
north
Ka
ukap
akap
a R
iver
H
ill C
ount
ry
Rel
ativ
ely
high
relie
f. S
igni
fican
t are
as o
f mat
urin
g ve
geta
tion.
O
nly
low
leve
ls o
f bui
lt m
odifi
catio
n (h
ouse
s).
Bus
h co
vere
d es
carp
men
t abo
ve
Kauk
apak
apa
Riv
er (t
ribut
ary
of
Kai
para
Riv
er).
Rem
nant
and
re
gene
ratin
g in
dige
nous
ve
geta
tion.
Tra
nsm
issi
on li
ne
pass
es th
roug
h. L
ands
cape
uni
t de
fined
by
pine
s, e
spec
ially
in th
e w
est.
Reg
ener
atin
g in
dige
nous
ve
geta
tion
rein
forc
ing
topo
grap
hy.
3
Are
a N
umbe
r Lo
catio
n N
ame
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Des
crip
tors
A
dditi
onal
Info
rmat
ion
Key
ON
L El
emen
ts, F
eatu
res
&
Patte
rns
9 K
auka
paka
pa
Hill
Cou
ntry
w
ith
Low
land
s on
so
uth
side
Rel
ativ
ely
high
relie
f. S
igni
fican
t are
as o
f mat
urin
g ve
geta
tion.
O
nly
low
leve
ls o
f bui
lt m
odifi
catio
n (h
ouse
s).
Inta
ct p
redo
min
antly
sou
th fa
cing
di
ssec
ted
hill
slop
es w
ith re
mna
nt
and
rege
nera
ting
indi
geno
us
vege
tatio
n.
Som
e po
cket
s m
ore
open
. C
entra
l par
t of u
nit h
as m
ore
past
ure
and
deve
lopm
ent b
ut w
ith
rem
nant
poc
kets
of i
ndig
enou
s ve
geta
tion
with
in m
ore
past
oral
la
ndsc
ape.
E
xten
ding
into
esc
arpm
ent a
nd
alon
g st
ream
mar
gins
aro
und
Wai
toki
.
Rem
nant
and
rege
nera
ting
indi
geno
us v
eget
atio
n re
info
rcin
g to
pogr
aphy
. P
asto
ral l
ands
cape
w
ith re
mna
nt p
ocke
ts o
f in
dige
nous
veg
etat
ion
with
hig
h ae
sthe
tic v
alue
s (c
ultu
red
natu
re).
10
Mak
arau
Val
ley,
nor
th
Hel
ensv
ille
Hill
Cou
ntry
R
elat
ivel
y hi
gh re
lief.
Sig
nific
ant a
reas
of m
atur
ing
vege
tatio
n.
Onl
y lo
w le
vels
of b
uilt
mod
ifica
tion
(hou
ses)
.
Ste
eper
sou
th fa
cing
slo
pes
with
in
mat
ure
and
rege
nera
ting
inta
ct
cove
r of i
ndig
enou
s ve
geta
tion.
S
ome
spra
y cl
earin
g –
pine
s.
Com
ing
over
tops
of r
idge
on
sout
h si
de o
f Mak
arau
Roa
d m
ore
open
an
d pa
stor
al, w
ith s
tand
s of
nat
ive
rem
nant
indi
geno
us tr
ees
eg
töta
ra, k
ahik
atea
, kan
uka,
pur
iri,
kaur
i.
Rem
nant
and
rege
nera
ting
indi
geno
us v
eget
atio
n re
info
rcin
g to
pogr
aphy
. P
asto
ral l
ands
cape
w
ith re
mna
nt p
ocke
ts o
f in
dige
nous
veg
etat
ion
with
hig
h ae
sthe
tic v
alue
s (c
ultu
red
natu
re).
11
Hea
dlan
d, M
akar
au
Riv
er
Hill
Cou
ntry
R
elat
ivel
y hi
gh re
lief.
Sig
nific
ant a
reas
of m
atur
ing
vege
tatio
n.
Onl
y lo
w le
vels
of b
uilt
mod
ifica
tion
(hou
ses)
.
Esc
arpm
ent a
bove
rive
r-m
outh
. H
eadl
and
land
form
. C
over
ed b
y in
tact
mat
ure
indi
geno
us
vege
tatio
n in
clud
ing
kaur
i, ka
hika
tea
and
töta
ra ru
nnin
g do
wn
to w
ater
. La
ndsc
ape
unit
ends
of
whi
te ‘h
ump’
brid
ge.
Inta
ct in
dige
nous
veg
etat
ion
exte
ndin
g to
wat
er e
dge.
4
Are
a N
umbe
r Lo
catio
n N
ame
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Des
crip
tors
A
dditi
onal
Info
rmat
ion
Key
ON
L El
emen
ts, F
eatu
res
&
Patte
rns
12
Mat
aia
Hea
dlan
d H
ill C
ount
ry
Rel
ativ
ely
high
relie
f (e
scar
pmen
t & h
eadl
and)
. S
igni
fican
t are
as o
f mat
urin
g ve
geta
tion.
O
nly
low
leve
ls o
f bui
lt m
odifi
catio
n (h
ouse
s).
Esc
arpm
ent a
nd h
eadl
and
land
form
at w
ater
s ed
ge.
Rem
nant
in
dige
nous
veg
etat
ion
with
poc
kets
of
pas
ture
. P
ines
def
ine
back
edg
e of
ON
L un
it.
Pro
min
ent c
oast
al la
ndfo
rm w
ith
larg
ely
inta
ct c
over
of i
ndig
enou
s ve
geta
tion.
13
Glo
rit K
noll
Hill
Cou
ntry
R
elat
ivel
y hi
gh re
lief
– kn
oll
land
form
. S
igni
fican
t are
as o
f mat
urin
g ve
geta
tion.
O
nly
low
leve
ls o
f bui
lt m
odifi
catio
n (h
ouse
s).
Dis
cret
e kn
oll l
andf
orm
, with
sol
id
area
of m
atur
e co
asta
l rem
nant
fo
rest
.
Inta
ct in
dige
nous
veg
etat
ion
reta
ined
on
disc
rete
ele
vate
d kn
oll l
andf
orm
.
14
Mt A
uckl
and
Hill
Cou
ntry
R
elat
ivel
y hi
gh re
lief.
Sig
nific
ant a
reas
of m
atur
ing
vege
tatio
n.
Onl
y lo
w le
vels
of b
uilt
mod
ifica
tion
(hou
ses)
.
Mt A
uckl
and
– in
tact
mat
ure
indi
geno
us fo
rest
rem
nant
on
prom
inen
t hill
and
high
poi
nt o
f ra
nge.
Inta
ct in
dige
nous
veg
etat
ion
rein
forc
ing
loca
lly p
rom
inen
t to
pogr
aphy
.
15
Sou
th H
oteo
Riv
er
Hill
Cou
ntry
R
elat
ivel
y hi
gh re
lief (
estu
ary
head
land
). S
igni
fican
t are
as o
f mat
urin
g ve
geta
tion.
O
nly
low
leve
ls o
f bui
lt m
odifi
catio
n (h
ouse
s).
Sm
all h
eadl
and
land
form
with
in
tact
cov
er o
f mat
ure
indi
geno
us
vege
tatio
n (ta
raire
, pur
iri, k
anuk
a,
kara
ka) a
djac
ent t
o ro
ad.
Inta
ct in
dige
nous
veg
etat
ion
rein
forc
ing
loca
lly p
rom
inen
t to
pogr
aphy
.
5
Are
a N
umbe
r Lo
catio
n N
ame
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Des
crip
tors
A
dditi
onal
Info
rmat
ion
Key
ON
L El
emen
ts, F
eatu
res
&
Patte
rns
16
Tauh
ora
Riv
er
mar
gins
E
stua
ry
Inte
rtida
l mar
gins
with
hig
hly
natu
ral v
alue
s, b
acke
d by
la
nd w
ith m
oder
ate
to ro
lling
relie
f. D
efin
ed b
ackd
rop.
S
igni
fican
t poc
kets
of t
all,
pred
omin
antly
indi
geno
us
vege
tatio
n.
Onl
y lo
w d
ensi
ty o
f su
bser
vien
t hou
ses/
built
m
odifi
catio
n.
Stro
ng p
atte
rnin
g an
d st
rong
en
dem
ic q
ualit
ies,
nat
ive
fore
st
rem
nant
s &
man
grov
es c
ombi
ned
with
wat
er a
nd p
astu
re.
Rem
nant
sta
nds
of in
dige
nous
ve
geta
tion
incl
udin
g ta
raire
, kau
ri,
kahi
kate
a, p
üriri
, töt
ara
and
nïka
u.
Sin
uous
pat
tern
s, in
dica
tive
of
Kai
para
Har
bour
ver
nacu
lar –
rela
ted
to w
ater
bod
ies,
land
form
an
d re
mna
nt s
tand
s of
nat
ive
vege
tatio
n.
Seq
uenc
e fro
m ri
ver
chan
nel/h
arbo
ur w
ater
s th
roug
h m
angr
ove
to te
rres
trial
indi
geno
us
vege
tatio
n. P
atte
rn o
f veg
etat
ion
cove
r in
rela
tion
to to
pogr
aphy
an
d na
tura
l pro
cess
es.
17
Hik
i Cre
ek &
K
ahut
aew
ao C
reek
va
lleys
(Bur
ma
Roa
d)
Hill
Cou
ntry
R
elat
ivel
y hi
gh re
lief,
with
ro
lling
hills
and
gul
lies.
S
igni
fican
t are
as o
f mat
urin
g ve
geta
tion
in g
ullie
s an
d in
re
mna
nt p
atch
es.
Onl
y lo
w le
vels
of b
uilt
mod
ifica
tion
(hou
ses)
.
Two
valle
y sy
stem
s w
ith g
ood
patte
rn o
f mat
ure
rem
nant
fore
st
inte
rmix
ed w
ith p
astu
re o
n sl
opes
.
Pat
tern
of r
emna
nt v
eget
atio
n in
terp
laye
d w
ith p
astu
re
(res
pond
ent t
o to
pogr
aphy
).
18
Fitz
gera
ld/B
urm
a/R
un
Roa
ds ri
dge,
O
kahu
kura
Pen
insu
la
Hill
Cou
ntry
R
elat
ivel
y hi
gh re
lief.
Sig
nific
ant a
reas
of m
atur
ing
vege
tatio
n.
Onl
y lo
w le
vels
of b
uilt
mod
ifica
tion
(hou
ses)
.
Inta
ct re
mna
nt &
rege
nera
ting
nativ
e fo
rest
. In
term
ixed
with
som
e pa
stur
e on
hig
h rid
ge a
nd s
purs
.
Inta
ctne
ss o
f for
est a
nd p
atte
rn o
f re
mna
nt v
eget
atio
n in
terp
laye
d w
ith p
astu
re (r
espo
nden
t to
topo
grap
hy).
6
Are
a N
umbe
r Lo
catio
n N
ame
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Des
crip
tors
A
dditi
onal
Info
rmat
ion
Key
ON
L El
emen
ts, F
eatu
res
&
Patte
rns
19
Oru
awha
ro H
eads
, O
kahu
kura
Pen
insu
la
Har
bour
H
eadl
ands
&
Est
uary
Inte
rtida
l mar
gin
that
is
high
ly n
atur
al –
har
bour
he
adla
nds
and
estu
ary
edge
. La
nd w
ith re
lativ
ely
high
re
lief.
Def
ined
Bac
kdro
p.
Sig
nific
ant a
reas
of t
all,
pred
omin
antly
nat
ive
vege
tatio
n.
Onl
y lo
w d
ensi
ty o
f su
bser
vien
t hou
ses/
built
m
odifi
catio
n.
Veg
etat
ed e
stua
ry/h
arbo
ur.
Ext
ensi
ve a
rea
of re
mna
nt c
oast
al
rege
nera
ting
fore
st o
n he
adla
nds
&
coas
tal e
scar
pmen
ts, f
ram
ing
Oru
awha
ro R
iver
mou
th.
Inta
ct re
mna
nt in
dige
nous
ve
geta
tion
cove
r at r
iver
m
outh
/har
bour
s ed
ge, r
espo
nsiv
e to
land
form
.
20
Tapo
ra D
une
Isla
nds
& C
MA
H
arbo
ur &
E
stua
ry
Inte
rtidi
al m
argi
n th
at is
hi
ghly
nat
ural
. S
igni
fican
t are
as o
f du
nela
nd/lo
wla
nd
vege
tatio
n.
Onl
y lo
w d
ensi
ty o
f su
bser
vien
t hou
ses/
built
m
odifi
catio
n.
Dun
elan
d ba
rrie
r isl
ands
with
low
ve
geta
tion
cove
r (so
me
pam
pas)
an
d m
angr
oves
. O
NL
unit
exte
nds
only
to th
e im
med
iate
land
war
d ed
ge.
Tapo
ra S
ettle
men
t adj
acen
t.
Inta
ct d
unel
and
land
form
s, b
arrie
r is
land
s.
7
Are
a N
umbe
r Lo
catio
n N
ame
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Des
crip
tors
A
dditi
onal
Info
rmat
ion
Key
ON
L El
emen
ts, F
eatu
res
&
Patte
rns
Rod
ney
Dis
tric
t
21
Wes
t Te
Ara
i Poi
nt
Hill
Cou
ntry
R
elat
ivel
y hi
gh re
lief.
Sig
nific
ant a
reas
of m
atur
ing
vege
tatio
n pa
rticu
larly
in
gullie
s.
Onl
y lo
w le
vels
of b
uilt
mod
ifica
tion
(hou
ses)
.
Rem
nant
sta
nds
of in
dige
nous
fo
rest
& re
gene
ratin
g sh
rubl
and
amon
g ro
lling
rura
l pas
ture
&
ridge
s. C
lear
pat
tern
ing
and
stru
ctur
e, re
info
rcin
g la
ndfo
rm.
Som
e le
vel o
f rur
al d
evel
opm
ent.
Inte
rpla
y be
twee
n re
mna
nt
vege
tatio
n an
d ru
ral p
astu
re
rein
forc
ing
topo
grap
hy.
22
Pak
iri B
each
C
oast
al
Und
evel
oped
eas
t coa
st
coas
tline
. S
trong
land
form
fram
e /d
efin
ition
. O
nly
low
den
sity
sub
serv
ient
de
velo
pmen
t (ho
uses
).
Maj
or o
cean
bea
ch, i
nlan
d bo
unda
ry d
efin
ed b
y pi
ne fo
rest
in
the
north
(Man
gaw
hai F
ores
t),
exte
ndin
g to
dun
e sy
stem
(rid
ge) i
n th
e ce
ntre
and
cre
st o
f coa
stal
es
carp
men
ts a
t the
sou
ther
n en
d.
Nat
ural
dun
elan
d to
pogr
aphy
, st
rong
ly e
xpre
ssed
coa
stal
pr
oces
ses.
Lon
g un
inte
rrup
ted
swee
p of
bea
ch.
23
Nor
th T
e H
ana
– To
mar
ata
Roa
d H
ill C
ount
ry
Rel
ativ
ely
high
relie
f. S
igni
fican
t are
as o
f mat
urin
g ve
geta
tion.
O
nly
low
leve
ls o
f bui
lt m
odifi
catio
n (h
ouse
s).
Sim
ilar t
o U
nit 2
1. R
emna
nt a
nd
rege
nera
ting
indi
geno
us v
eget
atio
n fo
llow
ing
gullie
s an
d to
p of
gul
ly
ridge
s. P
atte
rn a
ligns
with
la
ndfo
rm.
Low
leve
ls o
f de
velo
pmen
t with
in u
nit.
Inte
rpla
y be
twee
n re
mna
nt
vege
tatio
n an
d ru
ral p
astu
re
rein
forc
ing
topo
grap
hy.
24
Pak
iri B
lock
Roa
d H
ill C
ount
ry
Rel
ativ
ely
high
relie
f. S
igni
fican
t are
as o
f mat
urin
g ve
geta
tion.
O
nly
low
leve
ls o
f bui
lt m
odifi
catio
n (h
ouse
s).
Rid
ge to
ps, c
oast
al e
scar
pmen
t an
d pa
rts o
f coa
stal
terr
ace
with
la
rge
pock
ets
of re
mna
nt
indi
geno
us fo
rest
. P
atte
rn o
f ve
geta
tion
rein
forc
es e
leva
ted
land
form
s an
d fo
llow
s so
me
stre
ams.
Rem
nant
indi
geno
us v
eget
atio
n re
info
rcin
g to
pogr
aphy
.
8
Are
a N
umbe
r Lo
catio
n N
ame
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Des
crip
tors
A
dditi
onal
Info
rmat
ion
Key
ON
L El
emen
ts, F
eatu
res
&
Patte
rns
25
Pak
iri F
ooth
ills
Hill
Cou
ntry
R
elat
ivel
y hi
gh re
lief.
Sig
nific
ant a
reas
of m
atur
ing
vege
tatio
n.
Onl
y lo
w le
vels
of b
uilt
mod
ifica
tion
(hou
ses)
.
Rem
nant
mat
ure
indi
geno
us
vege
tatio
n in
larg
e ar
eas
and
patte
rnin
g of
rem
nant
fore
st a
nd
past
ure
on s
teep
to ro
lling
terr
ain.
To
tara
& k
auri
in p
artic
ular
. E
xten
ds to
low
land
stre
am m
argi
ns
in p
lace
s. S
mal
l pin
e in
trusi
ons
&
rura
l dev
elop
men
t.
Inta
ct re
mna
nt fo
rest
. In
terp
lay
betw
een
rem
nant
veg
etat
ion
and
rura
l pas
ture
, rei
nfor
cing
to
pogr
aphy
.
26
Rah
uiki
ri R
oad,
Pak
iri
Low
land
W
etla
nds
with
are
as o
f ope
n w
ater
. U
ndev
elop
ed m
argi
ns.
Sig
nific
ant r
emna
nt
indi
geno
us v
eget
atio
n.
Low
leve
ls o
f dev
elop
men
t.
Poc
ket w
etla
nd o
f goo
d si
ze
oppo
site
Pak
iri F
lats
. K
ahik
atea
an
d in
tact
veg
etat
ion
cove
r.
Inta
ct w
etla
nd a
nd v
eget
atio
n co
ver.
27
Mt T
amah
unga
H
ill C
ount
ry
Rel
ativ
ely
high
relie
f. S
igni
fican
t are
as o
f mat
urin
g ve
geta
tion.
O
nly
low
leve
ls o
f bui
lt m
odifi
catio
n.
Ver
y m
atur
e in
tact
nat
ive
vege
tatio
n in
clud
ing
Mt
Tam
ahun
ga, d
ram
atic
land
form
fe
atur
e. S
ome
pock
ets
of p
astu
re
finge
r up
into
bus
h ed
ges.
Low
le
vels
of r
ural
mod
ifica
tion.
C
ontig
uous
with
Uni
t 31
to th
e so
uth.
Dra
mat
ic la
ndfo
rm fe
atur
e w
ith
inta
ct in
dige
nous
veg
etat
ion
cove
r an
d re
mna
nt v
eget
atio
n w
ith
past
ure
finge
ring
into
edg
es.
28
Coa
stlin
e fro
m P
akiri
R
iver
to O
mah
a C
ove
Coa
stal
U
ndev
elop
ed e
ast c
oast
co
astli
ne.
Stro
ng la
ndfo
rm
fram
e/de
finiti
on.
Onl
y lo
w d
ensi
ty s
ubse
rvie
nt
deve
lopm
ent (
hous
es).
Roc
ky h
eadl
ands
and
bay
s w
ith
esca
rpm
ent b
ackd
rop.
Coa
stal
in
dige
nous
veg
etat
ion
alon
g w
ith
coas
tline
inte
rspe
rsed
with
mor
e op
en a
reas
. S
catte
red
coas
tal
settl
emen
t int
ersp
erse
d.
Coa
stal
land
form
s w
ith re
mna
nt
indi
geno
us v
eget
atio
n co
ver.
In
terp
lay
betw
een
rem
nant
ve
geta
tion
and
rura
l pas
ture
, re
info
rcin
g to
pogr
aphy
.
9
Are
a N
umbe
r Lo
catio
n N
ame
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Des
crip
tors
A
dditi
onal
Info
rmat
ion
Key
ON
L El
emen
ts, F
eatu
res
&
Patte
rns
29
Ti P
oint
H
arbo
ur &
E
stua
ry
Land
with
rela
tivel
y hi
gh
relie
f. D
efin
ed b
ackd
rop.
S
igni
fican
t are
as o
f tal
l, pr
edom
inan
tly n
ativ
e ve
geta
tion.
O
nly
low
den
sity
of
subs
ervi
ent h
ouse
s/bu
ilt
mod
ifica
tion.
Roc
ky h
arbo
ur a
nd e
stua
rine
mar
gins
def
ined
by
back
drop
of
rolli
ng h
ills a
nd n
ativ
e ve
geta
tion
rem
nant
s. I
nclu
des
a nu
mbe
r of
smal
l bay
s an
d co
ves.
Hig
h se
nse
of p
lace
val
ues.
Res
iden
tial
pock
ets
are
tuck
ed in
and
su
bser
vien
t.
Coa
stal
land
form
s w
ith re
mna
nt
indi
geno
us v
eget
atio
n.
30
Sou
th o
f Rod
ney
Roa
d, L
eigh
H
ill C
ount
ry
Rel
ativ
ely
high
relie
f. S
igni
fican
t are
as o
f mat
urin
g ve
geta
tion.
O
nly
low
leve
ls o
f bui
lt m
odifi
catio
n (h
ouse
s).
Inta
ct re
mna
nt a
nd re
gene
ratin
g in
dige
nous
veg
etat
ion
on ri
dge
tops
beh
ind
Leig
h. P
ocke
ts o
f pa
stur
e an
d lo
w le
vels
of b
uilt
intru
sion
.
Inte
rpla
y be
twee
n re
mna
nt
vege
tatio
n an
d ru
ral p
astu
re
rein
forc
ing
topo
grap
hy.
31
Puk
emat
akeo
(nea
r O
mah
a)
Hill
Cou
ntry
R
elat
ivel
y hi
gh re
lief.
Sig
nific
ant p
ocke
ts o
f m
atur
ing
vege
tatio
n.
Onl
y lo
w le
vels
of b
uilt
mod
ifica
tion
(hou
ses)
.
Rem
nant
s st
ands
of v
eget
atio
n in
term
ixed
with
pas
ture
on
slop
es
arou
nd p
rom
inen
t lan
dfor
m fe
atur
e of
Puk
emat
akeo
. Lo
w le
vels
of
built
dev
elop
men
t. C
ontig
uous
w
ith U
nit 2
7 to
nor
th.
Inte
rpla
y be
twee
n re
mna
nt
vege
tatio
n an
d ru
ral p
astu
re,
rein
forc
ing
topo
grap
hy -
loca
l la
ndfo
rm fe
atur
e.
32
Dom
e Fo
rest
H
ill C
ount
ry
Rel
ativ
ely
high
relie
f. S
igni
fican
t are
as o
f mat
urin
g ve
geta
tion.
O
nly
low
leve
ls o
f bui
lt m
odifi
catio
n (h
ouse
s).
Dom
e Fo
rest
- in
tact
rem
nant
and
re
gene
ratin
g fo
rest
on
high
relie
f la
ndfo
rm.
Som
e pi
ne in
trusi
on.
Min
imal
pas
ture
. V
ery
low
leve
ls o
f bu
ilt m
odifi
catio
n. E
xclu
des
“frog
po
ol” r
oads
ide
deve
lopm
ent.
Inta
ct in
dige
nous
veg
etat
ion
rein
forc
ing
land
form
.
33
Om
aha
Kah
ikat
ea
Sw
amp
Fore
st
Low
land
S
igni
fican
t rem
nant
in
dige
nous
kah
ikat
ea fo
rest
. Lo
w le
vels
of d
evel
opm
ent.
Low
land
coa
stal
kah
ikat
ea fo
rest
po
cket
, con
tiguo
us w
ith e
stua
rine
edge
.
Inta
ct in
dige
nous
veg
etat
ion
rein
forc
ing
land
form
.
10
Are
a N
umbe
r Lo
catio
n N
ame
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Des
crip
tors
A
dditi
onal
Info
rmat
ion
Key
ON
L El
emen
ts, F
eatu
res
&
Patte
rns
34
Wai
koko
pu C
reek
(in
ner W
hang
atea
u H
arbo
ur)
Har
bour
&
Est
uary
In
terti
dal m
argi
n w
hich
is
high
ly n
atur
al.
Low
lyin
g la
ndfo
rm
back
drop
. O
nly
low
den
sity
of
subs
ervi
ent h
ouse
s/bu
ilt
mod
ifica
tion.
Sal
tmar
sh, m
angr
oves
and
in
terti
dal m
ud fl
ats
Hea
d of
har
bour
and
inte
rtida
l ar
ea.
35
Nor
ther
n en
d M
anga
taw
hiri
(Om
aha)
Spi
t
Coa
stal
U
ndev
elop
ed e
ast c
oast
co
astli
ne.
Dun
es a
nd d
ista
l sp
it.
Stro
ng la
ndfo
rm fr
ame
/ de
finiti
on.
Onl
y lo
w d
ensi
ty s
ubse
rvie
nt
deve
lopm
ent (
hous
es).
Coa
stal
dun
es &
bea
ch a
t nor
ther
n en
d of
Om
aha
Spi
t (al
igns
with
op
en s
pace
are
a) &
adj
acen
t co
asta
l mar
ine
area
at e
ntra
nce
to
Wha
ngat
eau
Har
bour
.)
Coa
stal
land
form
s w
ith re
mna
nt
vege
tatio
n. P
rom
inen
t lan
dfor
m
feat
ure
fram
ing
entra
nce
to
Wha
ngat
eau
Har
bour
.
36
Mat
akan
a R
iver
–C
hris
tian
Bay
R
iver
mou
th
and
Coa
stal
U
ndev
elop
ed e
ast c
oast
co
astli
ne.
Stro
ng la
ndfo
rm fr
ame
/ de
finiti
on.
Onl
y lo
w d
ensi
ty s
ubse
rvie
nt
deve
lopm
ent (
hous
es).
Not
e: s
ome
coas
tal
settl
emen
t are
as e
xclu
ded.
Roc
ky s
hoal
s an
d ba
ys, h
eadl
ands
, ge
nera
lly w
ith s
ome
nativ
e co
ver
behi
nd.
Dis
pers
ed re
side
ntia
l de
velo
pmen
t, bu
t set
tlem
ents
ex
clud
ed.
Incl
udes
rem
nant
sta
nds
of in
dige
nous
fore
st e
xten
ding
in
land
as
part
of c
oast
al b
ackd
rop,
w
ith s
ome
past
ure
area
s in
ters
pers
ed.
Ext
ends
up
the
Mat
akan
a riv
er m
outh
coa
stal
ed
ge.
Coa
stal
land
form
s w
ith re
mna
nt
indi
geno
us v
eget
atio
n.
11
Are
a N
umbe
r Lo
catio
n N
ame
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Des
crip
tors
A
dditi
onal
Info
rmat
ion
Key
ON
L El
emen
ts, F
eatu
res
&
Patte
rns
37
Taw
hara
nui
Pen
insu
la
Hill
Cou
ntry
R
elat
ivel
y hi
gh re
lief.
Sig
nific
ant a
reas
of m
atur
ing
vege
tatio
n.
Onl
y lo
w le
vels
of b
uilt
mod
ifica
tion
(hou
ses)
.
Taw
hara
nui R
egio
nal P
ark
and
adja
cent
are
as o
f sim
ilar c
hara
cter
.
Rol
ling
land
form
with
rem
nant
po
cket
s of
pla
nted
and
nat
ural
ly
rege
nera
ting
indi
geno
us
vege
tatio
n, in
ters
pers
ed w
ith
past
ure.
Inc
lude
s ex
tens
ive
coas
tline
.
Inte
rpla
y be
twee
n re
mna
nt
vege
tatio
n an
d ru
ral p
astu
re,
rein
forc
ing
topo
grap
hy.
38
Mat
akan
a R
iver
S
outh
C
oast
al
Und
evel
oped
eas
t coa
st
coas
tline
. (D
evel
opm
ent s
its
behi
nd u
nit).
S
trong
land
form
fram
e /
defin
ition
. O
nly
low
den
sity
sub
serv
ient
de
velo
pmen
t (ho
uses
).
Coa
stal
esc
arpm
ent w
ith m
ore
or
less
inta
ct in
dige
nous
veg
etat
ion
cove
r. S
ome
resi
dent
ial
deve
lopm
ent w
ithin
uni
t, bu
t not
do
min
ant.
Mos
t res
iden
tial
deve
lopm
ent s
its b
ehin
d a
top
esca
rpm
ent.
Coa
stal
land
form
s w
ith re
mna
nt
indi
geno
us v
eget
atio
n.
39
Sca
ndre
tt R
egio
nal
Par
k- M
artin
s B
ay
Coa
stal
U
ndev
elop
ed e
ast c
oast
co
astli
ne.
Stro
ng la
ndfo
rm fr
ame
/ de
finiti
on.
Onl
y lo
w d
ensi
ty s
ubse
rvie
nt
deve
lopm
ent (
hous
es).
Hea
dlan
d w
ith s
teep
esc
arpm
ent
and
coas
tal f
ores
t rem
nant
, fra
min
g th
e so
uthe
rn e
nd o
f Kaw
au B
ay.
Coa
stal
land
form
s w
ith re
mna
nt
indi
geno
us v
eget
atio
n
40
Mah
uran
gi E
ast
Reg
iona
l Par
k C
oast
U
ndev
elop
ed e
ast c
oast
co
astli
ne.
Stro
ng la
ndfo
rm fr
ame
/ de
finiti
on.
Onl
y lo
w d
ensi
ty s
ubse
rvie
nt
deve
lopm
ent (
hous
es).
Coa
stal
esc
arpm
ent,
prom
inen
t, dr
amat
ic la
ndfo
rm, r
emna
nt a
nd
rege
nera
ting
coas
tal f
ores
t, so
uth
of M
artin
s B
ay a
nd in
clud
ing
entir
e he
adla
nd la
ndsc
ape.
Som
e pa
stur
e al
so e
xten
ding
dow
n to
w
ater
s ed
ge.
Lim
ited
deve
lopm
ent.
Coa
stal
land
form
s w
ith re
mna
nt
indi
geno
us v
eget
atio
n. I
nter
play
of
pas
ture
with
in v
eget
ated
la
ndsc
ape.
12
Are
a N
umbe
r Lo
catio
n N
ame
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Des
crip
tors
A
dditi
onal
Info
rmat
ion
Key
ON
L El
emen
ts, F
eatu
res
&
Patte
rns
41
Te K
apa
Riv
er
head
wat
ers
(Mah
uran
gi)
Har
bour
&
Est
uary
D
efin
ed B
ackd
rop.
S
igni
fican
t are
as o
f tal
l, pr
edom
inan
tly n
ativ
e ve
geta
tion.
O
nly
low
den
sity
of
subs
ervi
ent h
ouse
s/bu
ilt
mod
ifica
tion.
Ext
ensi
ve m
angr
ove
and
saltm
arsh
es
tuar
ine
area
s lin
ked
to b
ush
rem
nant
ext
endi
ng u
p va
lley
syst
em, c
reat
ing
stro
ng p
atte
rn
with
adj
oini
ng p
astu
re.
Inte
rpla
y be
twee
n re
mna
nt
vege
tatio
n an
d ru
ral p
astu
re,
rein
forc
ing
topo
grap
hy.
42
Sco
tts P
oint
&
Cas
nell
Isla
nd
Har
bour
&
Est
uary
La
nd w
ith re
lativ
ely
high
re
lief.
Def
ined
bac
kdro
p.
Sig
nific
ant a
reas
of t
all,
pred
omin
antly
nat
ive
vege
tatio
n.
Onl
y lo
w d
ensi
ty o
f su
bser
vien
t hou
ses/
built
m
odifi
catio
n.
Pro
min
ent h
eadl
and
(Sco
tts P
oint
an
d C
asne
ll Is
land
) with
larg
e ar
eas
of re
mna
nt a
nd re
gene
ratin
g co
asta
l for
est.
Som
e ar
eas
of lo
w
dens
ity re
side
ntia
l dev
elop
men
t.
Lim
ited
past
ure.
Coa
stal
land
form
s w
ith re
mna
nt
indi
geno
us v
eget
atio
n. I
nter
play
of
pas
ture
with
in v
eget
ated
la
ndsc
ape.
43
Wes
t Mah
uran
gi
Har
bour
H
ill C
ount
ry
Rel
ativ
ely
high
relie
f. S
igni
fican
t are
as o
f mat
urin
g ve
geta
tion.
O
nly
low
leve
ls o
f bui
lt m
odifi
catio
n (h
ouse
s).
Wes
t sid
e of
Mah
uran
gi H
arbo
ur.
Sig
nific
ant a
reas
of r
emna
nt
indi
geno
us fo
rest
ext
endi
ng fr
om
the
harb
our m
argi
ns (a
nd in
clud
ing
thos
e m
argi
ns) i
nto
the
hill
back
drop
. P
astu
re in
terp
lays
with
pa
ttern
of f
ores
t to
rein
forc
e la
ndfo
rm.
Low
leve
l of r
ural
re
side
ntia
l dev
elop
men
t.
Inte
rpla
y be
twee
n re
mna
nt
vege
tatio
n an
d ru
ral p
astu
re,
rein
forc
ing
land
form
.
13
Are
a N
umbe
r Lo
catio
n N
ame
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Des
crip
tors
A
dditi
onal
Info
rmat
ion
Key
ON
L El
emen
ts, F
eatu
res
&
Patte
rns
44
Mah
uran
gi-W
aiw
era
Hill
Cou
ntry
R
elat
ivel
y hi
gh re
lief.
Sig
nific
ant a
reas
of m
atur
ing
vege
tatio
n.
Onl
y lo
w le
vels
of b
uilt
mod
ifica
tion
(hou
ses)
.
Rol
ling
to s
teep
ly ro
lling
hill
coun
try
with
pas
ture
inte
rmix
ed w
ith
rem
nant
fore
st a
nd in
cise
d co
asta
l va
lleys
, with
esc
arpm
ents
cov
ered
in
nat
ive
fore
st.
Coa
stlin
e w
ith
cliff
s an
d fo
rest
rem
nant
s. S
ome
area
s of
mor
e in
tens
ive
settl
emen
t ex
clud
ed.
Coa
stal
and
hill
cou
ntry
land
form
s w
ith re
mna
nt in
dige
nous
ve
geta
tion
and
patte
rn o
f pas
ture
re
info
rcin
g to
pogr
aphy
.
45
Kai
para
Fla
ts
Hill
Cou
ntry
R
elat
ivel
y hi
gh re
lief.
Sig
nific
ant a
reas
of m
atur
ing
vege
tatio
n.
Onl
y lo
w le
vels
of b
uilt
mod
ifica
tion
(hou
ses)
.
Pro
min
ent k
noll
land
form
with
st
rong
pat
tern
ing
of p
astu
re a
nd
rem
nant
fore
st w
ith lo
wla
nd a
pron
of
töta
ra a
nd k
ahik
atea
dom
inat
ed
fore
st a
long
stre
am c
orrid
ors,
m
ixed
with
pas
ture
.
Inte
rpla
y be
twee
n re
mna
nt
vege
tatio
n an
d ru
ral p
astu
re,
rein
forc
ing
topo
grap
hy.
46
Upp
er P
uhoi
Val
ley
Hill
Cou
ntry
R
elat
ivel
y hi
gh re
lief.
Sig
nific
ant a
reas
of m
atur
ing
vege
tatio
n.
Onl
y lo
w le
vels
of b
uilt
mod
ifica
tion
(hou
ses)
.
Ste
ep h
ill c
ount
ry a
nd g
ullie
s as
w
ell a
s es
carp
men
t with
inta
ct a
nd
pock
ets
of n
ativ
e re
mna
nt fo
rest
, in
ters
pers
ed w
ith p
astu
re.
Stro
ng
patte
rn a
nd s
truct
ure.
Inte
rpla
y be
twee
n re
mna
nt
vege
tatio
n an
d ru
ral p
astu
re,
rein
forc
ing
topo
grap
hy.
14
Are
a N
umbe
r Lo
catio
n N
ame
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Des
crip
tors
A
dditi
onal
Info
rmat
ion
Key
ON
L El
emen
ts, F
eatu
res
&
Patte
rns
Cen
tral
Rod
ney
- Ore
wa
47
Upp
er W
aiw
era
Roa
d H
ill C
ount
ry
Rel
ativ
ely
high
relie
f. S
igni
fican
t are
as o
f mat
urin
g ve
geta
tion.
O
nly
low
leve
ls o
f bui
lt m
odifi
catio
n (h
ouse
s).
Poc
kets
of r
emna
nt fo
rest
incl
udin
g ka
hika
tea
amon
g ro
lling
past
ure
and
follo
win
g st
ream
cor
ridor
s.
Som
e ru
ral d
evel
opm
ent,
but
reta
inin
g a
clea
r and
coh
esiv
e ‘n
atur
al’ p
atte
rnin
g.
Inte
rpla
y be
twee
n re
mna
nt
vege
tatio
n an
d ru
ral p
astu
re,
rein
forc
ing
topo
grap
hy.
48
Wai
nui R
oad
Hill
Cou
ntry
R
elat
ivel
y hi
gh re
lief.
Sig
nific
ant a
reas
of m
atur
ing
vege
tatio
n.
Onl
y lo
w le
vels
of b
uilt
mod
ifica
tion
(hou
ses)
.
Pre
dom
inan
ce o
f rem
nant
in
dige
nous
fore
st o
n rid
gelin
e an
d hi
lls, e
xten
ding
dow
n to
a s
tream
gu
lly o
n th
e so
uthe
rn s
ide.
Indi
geno
us fo
rest
rem
nant
s re
info
rcin
g to
pogr
aphy
.
49
Sun
nysi
de R
oad,
C
oats
ville
Lo
wla
nds
Rel
ativ
ely
high
relie
f. S
igni
fican
t are
as o
f mat
urin
g ve
geta
tion.
O
nly
low
leve
ls o
f bui
lt m
odifi
catio
n (h
ouse
s).
Rem
nant
ban
ds o
f ind
igen
ous
fore
st o
n es
carp
men
ts a
nd ri
dges
, ex
tend
ing
in s
ome
plac
es d
own
stre
am c
orrid
ors.
Kau
ri, k
ahik
atea
, tä
neka
ha p
rom
inen
t. In
terp
lay
with
pa
stur
e on
frin
ges
Indi
geno
us fo
rest
rem
nant
s re
info
rcin
g to
pogr
aphy
. In
terp
lay
with
pas
ture
.
50
Sha
kesp
ear R
egio
nal
Par
k &
Coa
stlin
e C
oast
al
Und
evel
oped
eas
t coa
st
coas
tline
. S
trong
land
form
fra
me/
defin
ition
. O
nly
low
den
sity
sub
serv
ient
de
velo
pmen
t (ho
uses
).
Sha
kesp
ear R
egio
nal P
ark,
clif
f m
argi
ns a
roun
d to
Arm
y B
ay a
nd
Oko
rom
ai B
ay.
Dra
mat
ic c
oast
al
cliff
pro
files
at s
ea e
dge
com
bine
d w
ith p
ocke
ts o
f reg
ener
atin
g in
dige
nous
veg
etat
ion,
mix
ed w
ith
past
ure
on ro
lling
terr
ain.
Coa
stal
land
form
s w
ith re
mna
nt
indi
geno
us v
eget
atio
n an
d pa
ttern
of
pas
ture
rein
forc
ing
topo
grap
hy.
15
Are
a N
umbe
r Lo
catio
n N
ame
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Des
crip
tors
A
dditi
onal
Info
rmat
ion
Key
ON
L El
emen
ts, F
eatu
res
&
Patte
rns
51
Oku
ra E
stua
ry
Hea
dlan
ds
Coa
stal
U
ndev
elop
ed e
ast c
oast
co
astli
ne.
Stro
ng la
ndfo
rm fr
ame
/ de
finiti
on.
Onl
y lo
w d
ensi
ty s
ubse
rvie
nt
deve
lopm
ent (
hous
es).
Oku
ra E
stua
ry a
nd L
ong
Bay
Hea
dlan
ds, i
nclu
ding
indi
geno
us
fore
st c
over
ed e
scar
pmen
ts a
nd
dram
atic
clif
f-lin
e.
Coa
stal
/est
uarin
e la
ndfo
rms
with
re
mna
nt in
dige
nous
veg
etat
ion
and
patte
rn o
f pas
ture
rein
forc
ing
topo
grap
hy.
16
Are
a N
umbe
r Lo
catio
n N
ame
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Des
crip
tors
A
dditi
onal
Info
rmat
ion
Key
ON
L El
emen
ts, F
eatu
res
&
Patte
rns
Nor
th S
hore
City
1 P
arem
orem
o Es
carp
men
t H
ill C
ount
ry
Rel
ativ
ely
high
relie
f. S
igni
fican
t are
as o
f mat
urin
g ve
geta
tion.
O
nly
low
leve
ls o
f bui
lt m
odifi
catio
n (h
ouse
s).
Follo
ws
road
alo
ng ri
dge
and
Par
emor
emo
Stre
am a
long
bot
tom
. In
tact
indi
geno
us v
eget
atio
n, w
ith
limite
d m
atur
e pi
ne in
trusi
on.
Indi
geno
us fo
rest
rem
nant
s re
info
rcin
g to
pogr
aphy
.
52
Ote
ha S
tream
Es
carp
men
t H
ill C
ount
ry
Rel
ativ
ely
high
relie
f. S
igni
fican
t are
as o
f mat
urin
g ve
geta
tion.
O
nly
low
leve
ls o
f bui
lt m
odifi
catio
n (h
ouse
s).
Ote
ha V
alle
y E
scar
pmen
t. In
tact
in
dige
nous
veg
etat
ion
on
prom
inen
t esc
arpm
ent l
andf
orm
. S
outh
faci
ng.
Indi
geno
us fo
rest
rem
nant
s re
info
rcin
g to
pogr
aphy
.
53
Luca
s C
reek
H
arbo
ur &
E
stua
ry
Inte
rtida
l mar
gin
whi
ch is
hi
ghly
nat
ural
. B
acke
d by
land
with
re
lativ
ely
high
relie
f. D
efin
ed b
ackd
rop.
S
igni
fican
t are
as o
f tal
l, pr
edom
inan
tly n
ativ
e ve
geta
tion.
O
nly
low
den
sity
of
subs
ervi
ent h
ouse
s / b
uilt
mod
ifica
tion.
Luca
s C
reek
veg
etat
ed
esca
rpm
ent d
own
to e
stua
ry
mar
gins
with
rem
nant
coa
stal
fo
rest
. R
ogue
mat
ure
pine
s.
Can
opy
spec
ies
incl
ude
kaur
i, ka
hika
tea,
kan
uka,
tota
ra,
tane
kaha
, kow
hai.
Indi
geno
us fo
rest
rem
nant
s re
info
rcin
g to
pogr
aphy
.
54
Long
Bay
C
oast
al
Und
evel
oped
eas
t coa
st
coas
tline
. S
trong
land
form
fra
me/
defin
ition
. O
nly
low
den
sity
sub
serv
ient
de
velo
pmen
t (ho
uses
).
Coa
stal
bac
kdro
p to
nor
ther
n pa
rt of
Lon
g B
ay R
egio
nal P
ark.
D
ram
atic
coa
stal
hea
dlan
ds, w
ith
indi
geno
us v
eget
atio
n –
pohu
tuka
wa.
Coa
stal
land
form
s w
ith re
mna
nt
indi
geno
us v
eget
atio
n re
info
rcin
g to
pogr
aphy
.
17
Are
a N
umbe
r Lo
catio
n N
ame
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Des
crip
tors
A
dditi
onal
Info
rmat
ion
Key
ON
L El
emen
ts, F
eatu
res
&
Patte
rns
Fran
klin
Dis
tric
t
55
Wes
t Coa
st A
whi
tu
Pen
insu
la
Hill
Cou
ntry
&
Coa
stal
R
elat
ivel
y hi
gh re
lief.
Sig
nific
ant a
reas
of m
atur
ing
vege
tatio
n.
Onl
y lo
w le
vels
of b
uilt
mod
ifica
tion
(hou
ses)
.
Ext
ensi
ve la
ndsc
ape
with
dra
mat
ic
sand
ridg
e co
asta
l lan
dfor
m a
nd
dram
atic
clif
fs a
nd ri
dges
abu
tting
th
e Ta
sman
Sea
. In
dige
nous
fo
rest
rem
nant
s, m
ainl
y in
gul
lies
and
on s
teep
slo
pes,
inte
rmix
ed
with
pas
ture
. S
pora
dic
hous
ing
(farm
and
rura
l res
iden
tial).
Som
e m
atur
e an
d yo
ung
plan
tatio
n pi
ne
that
has
gen
eral
ly b
een
excl
uded
.
Coa
stal
and
coa
stal
ly d
eriv
ed
land
form
s w
ith re
mna
nt
indi
geno
us v
eget
atio
n an
d pa
ttern
of
pas
ture
rein
forc
ing
topo
grap
hy.
56
Lake
s W
hatih
ua,
Rot
oiti,
& P
uket
i Lo
wla
nd
Lake
s an
d w
etla
nds
with
ar
eas
of o
pen
wat
er.
Und
evel
oped
mar
gins
. Lo
w le
vels
of d
evel
opm
ent.
Coh
esiv
e pa
ttern
.
Sm
all l
akes
eith
er s
ide
of K
ario
tahi
R
oad
fram
ed b
y op
en d
une
ridge
s an
d pa
stur
e w
ith w
etla
nd m
argi
ns,
raup
ö an
d ot
her s
peci
es
Nat
ural
lake
s an
d w
etla
nds.
57
Kar
iota
hi C
oast
line
Coa
stal
U
ndev
elop
ed w
est c
oast
co
astli
ne.
Stro
ng la
ndfo
rm fr
ame
/ de
finiti
on.
Onl
y lo
w d
ensi
ty s
ubse
rvie
nt
deve
lopm
ent (
hous
es).
Dra
mat
ic li
near
Kar
iota
hi c
oast
line
com
pris
ing
dyna
mic
wes
t coa
st
beac
h fro
nts
and
iron
sand
, with
st
eep
esca
rpm
ent b
ackd
rop
(pas
ture
and
som
e pi
nes)
.
Long
ext
ent o
f bea
ch a
nd d
unes
w
ith re
lativ
ely
unde
velo
ped
rura
l ba
ckdr
op.
58
(mos
t of
unit
is in
th
e W
aika
to
Reg
ion
&
is n
ot
show
n on
m
aps)
Puk
eow
are
Hill
Cou
ntry
R
elat
ivel
y hi
gh re
lief.
Sig
nific
ant a
reas
of m
atur
ing
vege
tatio
n.
Onl
y lo
w le
vels
of b
uilt
mod
ifica
tion
(hou
ses)
.
Cen
tral h
ighp
oint
with
sig
nific
ant
stan
ds, a
nd lo
ne tr
ees
or g
roup
s of
in
dige
nous
veg
etat
ion
inte
rspe
rsed
w
ith p
astu
re.
Low
den
sity
of r
ural
an
d ru
ral r
esid
entia
l hou
sing
pr
esen
t, bu
t sub
serv
ient
.
Inte
rpla
y of
indi
geno
us fo
rest
re
mna
nts
and
past
ure,
rein
forc
ing
topo
grap
hy.
18
Are
a N
umbe
r Lo
catio
n N
ame
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Des
crip
tors
A
dditi
onal
Info
rmat
ion
Key
ON
L El
emen
ts, F
eatu
res
&
Patte
rns
59
Wes
t Ram
aram
a &
B
omba
y (T
wo
site
s)
Hill
Cou
ntry
Rel
ativ
ely
high
relie
f. S
igni
fican
t are
as o
f mat
urin
g ve
geta
tion.
O
nly
low
leve
ls o
f bui
lt m
odifi
catio
n (h
ouse
s).
Rol
ling
terr
ain
on th
e fri
nges
of t
he
Bom
bay
Hills
with
larg
e po
cket
s of
re
mna
nt b
road
leaf
fore
st a
mon
g pa
stur
e, h
ortic
ultu
re a
nd ru
ral
resi
dent
ial d
evel
opm
ent.
Som
e fo
rest
on
stee
p es
carp
men
ts.
Inte
rpla
y of
indi
geno
us fo
rest
re
mna
nts
and
past
ure,
rein
forc
ing
topo
grap
hy.
60
Pon
ga R
oad
Hill
Cou
ntry
R
elat
ivel
y hi
gh re
lief.
Sig
nific
ant a
reas
of m
atur
ing
vege
tatio
n.
Onl
y lo
w le
vels
of b
uilt
mod
ifica
tion
(hou
ses)
.
Ste
ep h
ill c
ount
ry w
ith la
rge
tract
s of
rem
nant
nat
ive
fore
st fo
llow
ing
stre
am g
ullie
s an
d on
upp
er s
lope
s &
ridg
es.
Inte
rpla
y of
indi
geno
us fo
rest
re
mna
nts
and
past
ure,
rein
forc
ing
topo
grap
hy.
61
(mos
t of
unit
is in
th
e W
aika
to
Reg
ion
&
is n
ot
show
n on
m
aps)
Pin
nacl
e H
ill H
ill C
ount
ry
Rel
ativ
ely
high
relie
f. S
igni
fican
t are
as o
f mat
urin
g ve
geta
tion.
O
nly
low
leve
ls o
f bui
lt m
odifi
catio
n (h
ouse
s).
Ele
vate
d hi
ll co
untry
with
inta
ct
cove
r of r
emna
nt in
dige
nous
ve
geta
tion.
Are
as o
f les
s es
tabl
ishe
d in
dige
nous
re
gene
ratio
n an
d pi
ne e
xclu
ded.
In
clud
es p
asto
ral f
ooth
ills w
here
th
ere
is a
low
den
sity
dev
elop
men
t.
Ext
ends
to lo
wla
nd p
asto
ral f
ringe
ne
ar S
tate
Hig
hway
2 a
nd in
clud
es
ripar
ian
and
low
land
kah
ikat
ea
fore
st.
Inte
rpla
y of
indi
geno
us fo
rest
re
mna
nts
and
past
ure,
rein
forc
ing
topo
grap
hy.
I
62
(Par
t in
Man
ukau
C
ity)
Hun
ua R
ange
s H
ill C
ount
ry
Rel
ativ
ely
high
relie
f. S
igni
fican
t are
as o
f mat
urin
g ve
geta
tion.
O
nly
low
leve
ls o
f bui
lt m
odifi
catio
n (h
ouse
s).
Inta
ct m
atur
e in
dige
nous
fore
st o
n st
eep
hill
coun
try a
nd a
roun
d w
ater
ca
tchm
ent l
akes
, ext
endi
ng d
own
to th
e co
asta
l mar
gins
of t
he F
irth
of T
ham
es a
nd s
ome
stre
am
corr
idor
s. I
nclu
des
past
oral
toe
slop
es w
here
fore
st in
terp
lays
.
Inte
rpla
y of
inta
ct m
atur
e in
dige
nous
fore
st a
nd fo
rest
re
mna
nts
with
pas
ture
, rei
nfor
cing
to
pogr
aphy
. I
19
Are
a N
umbe
r Lo
catio
n N
ame
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Des
crip
tors
A
dditi
onal
Info
rmat
ion
Key
ON
L El
emen
ts, F
eatu
res
&
Patte
rns
Man
ukau
C
ity
63
Ore
re P
oint
–
Wai
man
gu
Har
bour
and
E
stua
ry
Def
ined
Bac
kdro
p.
Sig
nific
ant a
reas
of t
all,
pred
omin
antly
nat
ive
vege
tatio
n.
Onl
y lo
w d
ensi
ty o
f su
bser
vien
t hou
ses/
bui
lt m
odifi
catio
n.
Firth
of T
ham
es c
oast
line
with
st
ands
of r
emna
nt c
oast
al fo
rest
ex
tend
ing
up s
tream
cat
chm
ents
an
d on
slo
pes.
Int
erpl
ay w
ith
past
ure.
Inte
rpla
y of
indi
geno
us fo
rest
re
mna
nts
and
past
ure,
rein
forc
ing
topo
grap
hy.
64
Kau
ri B
ay H
eadl
ands
, W
airo
a R
iver
C
oast
al
Und
evel
oped
eas
t coa
st
coas
tline
. S
trong
land
form
fram
e /
defin
ition
. O
nly
low
den
sity
sub
serv
ient
de
velo
pmen
t (ho
uses
).
Two
head
land
s de
finin
g K
auri
Bay
w
ith in
tact
indi
geno
us v
eget
atio
n,
and
rock
y sh
ores
.
Coa
stal
land
form
s w
ith re
mna
nt
indi
geno
us v
eget
atio
n re
info
rcin
g to
pogr
aphy
.
65
Mat
aita
i For
est
Hill
Cou
ntry
R
elat
ivel
y hi
gh re
lief.
Sig
nific
ant a
reas
of m
atur
ing
vege
tatio
n.
Onl
y lo
w le
vels
of b
uilt
mod
ifica
tion
(hou
ses)
.
Rem
nant
indi
geno
us fo
rest
on
high
hi
ll co
untry
inte
rmix
ed w
ith s
ome
past
ure
on s
lope
s ne
ar th
e N
ess
Val
ley.
Inte
rpla
y of
indi
geno
us fo
rest
re
mna
nts
and
past
ure,
rein
forc
ing
topo
grap
hy.
66
Nor
th C
leve
don
Hill
Cou
ntry
R
elat
ivel
y hi
gh re
lief.
Sig
nific
ant a
reas
of m
atur
ing
vege
tatio
n.
Onl
y lo
w le
vels
of b
uilt
mod
ifica
tion
(hou
ses)
.
Dis
cret
e el
evat
ed h
ill la
ndfo
rm a
t th
e ba
ck o
f Cle
vedo
n se
ttlem
ent
with
rem
nant
indi
geno
us
vege
tatio
n. S
ome
pine
edg
es
intru
de.
Inte
rpla
y of
indi
geno
us fo
rest
re
mna
nts
with
pas
ture
, rei
nfor
cing
to
pogr
aphy
.
20
Are
a N
umbe
r Lo
catio
n N
ame
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Des
crip
tors
A
dditi
onal
Info
rmat
ion
Key
ON
L El
emen
ts, F
eatu
res
&
Patte
rns
67
Dud
er R
egio
nal P
ark
Har
bour
&
Est
uary
In
terti
dal m
argi
n w
hich
is
high
ly n
atur
al.
Bac
ked
by la
nd w
ith
rela
tivel
y hi
gh re
lief.
D
efin
ed b
ackd
rop.
S
igni
fican
t are
as o
f tal
l pr
edom
inan
tly n
ativ
e ve
geta
tion.
O
nly
low
den
sity
of
subs
ervi
ent h
ouse
s/bu
ilt
envi
ronm
ent.
Dud
er R
egio
nal P
ark
– he
adla
nd
land
form
s (d
ram
atic
) com
bine
d w
ith m
angr
ove/
saltm
arsh
bea
ch
and
esca
rpm
ent h
eadl
and
to th
e no
rth o
f the
Wai
roa
Riv
er.
Coa
stal
land
form
s w
ith re
mna
nt
indi
geno
us v
eget
atio
n re
info
rcin
g to
pogr
aphy
.
68
Inla
nd K
awak
awa
H
ill C
ount
ry
Rel
ativ
ely
high
relie
f. S
igni
fican
t are
as o
f mat
urin
g ve
geta
tion.
O
nly
low
leve
ls o
f bui
lt m
odifi
catio
n (h
ouse
s).
Sea
war
d fa
cing
coa
stal
ridg
es w
ith
rem
nant
coa
stal
fore
st c
ombi
ned
with
ste
ep e
scar
pmen
ts a
long
ro
cky
shor
elin
e
Coa
stal
land
form
s w
ith re
mna
nt
indi
geno
us v
eget
atio
n re
info
rcin
g to
pogr
aphy
.
69
Om
ana
Reg
iona
l Par
k H
arbo
ur &
E
stua
ry
Def
ined
bac
kdro
p.
Sig
nific
ant a
reas
of t
all,
pred
omin
antly
nat
ive
vege
tatio
n.
Onl
y lo
w d
ensi
ty o
f su
bser
vien
t hou
ses/
built
m
odifi
catio
n.
Om
ana
Reg
iona
l Par
k, c
oast
al
edge
with
frin
ge o
f nat
ive
vege
tatio
n.
Coa
stal
land
form
s w
ith re
mna
nt
indi
geno
us v
eget
atio
n re
info
rcin
g to
pogr
aphy
.
21
Are
a N
umbe
r Lo
catio
n N
ame
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Des
crip
tors
A
dditi
onal
Info
rmat
ion
Key
ON
L El
emen
ts, F
eatu
res
&
Patte
rns
70
Trig
Roa
d W
hitfo
rd
Hill
Cou
ntry
R
elat
ivel
y hi
gh re
lief.
Sig
nific
ant a
reas
of m
atur
ing
vege
tatio
n.
Onl
y lo
w le
vels
of b
uilt
mod
ifica
tion
(hou
ses)
.
Rem
nant
and
rege
nera
ting
indi
geno
us fo
rest
on
stre
am
esca
rpm
ent,
partl
y fra
med
and
in
plac
es in
terru
pted
by
past
ure
and
youn
ger s
hrub
land
and
re
gene
ratin
g ve
geta
tion.
Bot
h pi
nes
and
past
ure
on p
erip
hery
. S
ome
subs
ervi
ent r
ural
resi
dent
ial
(beh
ind
Whi
tford
).
Inte
rpla
y of
indi
geno
us fo
rest
re
mna
nts
and
past
ure,
rein
forc
ing
topo
grap
hy.
71
Man
gem
ange
roa
Cre
ek E
scar
pmen
t H
arbo
ur &
E
stua
ry
Land
with
rela
tivel
y hi
gh
relie
f. D
efin
ed b
ackd
rop.
S
igni
fican
t are
as o
f tal
l, pr
edom
inan
tly n
ativ
e ve
geta
tion.
O
nly
low
den
sity
of
subs
ervi
ent h
ouse
s/ b
uilt
mod
ifica
tion.
Man
gem
ange
roa
Cre
ek c
oast
al
esca
rpm
ent w
ith b
and
of re
mna
nt
fore
st a
bove
man
grov
e lin
ed in
let.
Coa
stal
land
form
s w
ith re
mna
nt
indi
geno
us v
eget
atio
n re
info
rcin
g to
pogr
aphy
.
22
Are
a N
umbe
r Lo
catio
n N
ame
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Des
crip
tors
A
dditi
onal
Info
rmat
ion
Key
ON
L El
emen
ts, F
eatu
res
&
Patte
rns
Wai
take
re C
ity
72
Sou
th T
itira
ngi
Har
bour
&
Est
uary
La
nd w
ith re
lativ
ely
high
re
lief.
Def
ined
bac
kdro
p.
Sig
nific
ant a
reas
of t
all,
pred
omin
antly
nat
ive
vege
tatio
n.
Onl
y lo
w d
ensi
ty o
f su
bser
vien
t hou
ses/
built
m
odifi
catio
n.
Sou
th T
itira
ngi c
oast
. C
oast
al
edge
with
con
tiguo
us in
dige
nous
ve
geta
tion
exte
ndin
g in
to th
e R
ange
s ba
ckdr
op.
Kau
ri an
d m
ixed
bro
adle
af fo
rest
. In
clud
es
spor
adic
hou
ses
set i
nto
bush
, but
no
t dom
inan
t. M
ore
dens
ely
settl
ed a
reas
exc
lude
d.
Coa
stal
land
form
s w
ith re
mna
nt
indi
geno
us v
eget
atio
n re
info
rcin
g to
pogr
aphy
.
73
Wai
take
re R
ange
s an
d C
oast
line
Hill
Cou
ntry
R
elat
ivel
y hi
gh re
lief.
Sig
nific
ant a
reas
of m
atur
ing
vege
tatio
n.
Onl
y lo
w le
vels
of b
uilt
mod
ifica
tion
(hou
ses)
.
Incl
udes
Wai
take
re R
ange
s,
Tasm
an S
ea a
nd M
anuk
au
Har
bour
coa
stlin
es a
nd w
ater
ca
tchm
ent l
akes
. C
ontin
uous
fo
rest
with
dra
mat
ic c
oast
al
mar
gins
(Wes
t Coa
st c
oast
line)
. S
ome
pock
ets
of p
astu
re a
nd ru
ral
resi
dent
ial d
evel
opm
ent.
Te
Hen
ga w
etla
nds.
Mur
iwai
and
Te
Hen
ga h
eadl
ands
hav
e ar
eas
of
past
ure
with
dra
mat
ic la
ndfo
rm.
Coa
stal
and
inla
nd ra
nges
la
ndfo
rms
with
larg
ely
inta
ct
rem
nant
indi
geno
us v
eget
atio
n re
info
rcin
g to
pogr
aphy
.
23
Are
a N
umbe
r Lo
catio
n N
ame
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Des
crip
tors
A
dditi
onal
Info
rmat
ion
Key
ON
L El
emen
ts, F
eatu
res
&
Patte
rns
Hau
raki
Gul
f Isl
ands
74
Ran
gito
to
Mot
utap
u M
otui
he
Mot
ukor
ea (B
row
ns)
Tirit
iri M
atan
gi
Isla
nds
Und
evel
oped
coa
stlin
e.
Inta
ct v
eget
atio
n pa
ttern
re
info
rcin
g la
ndfo
rrm
. P
asto
ral/o
pen
land
scap
e ex
pres
sing
topo
grap
hy.
Stro
ng la
ndfo
rm
fram
e/de
finiti
on.
Isla
nd la
ndsc
apes
def
inin
g H
aura
ki
Gul
f. S
trong
land
form
ch
arac
teris
tics
rein
forc
ed b
y ve
geta
tion
cove
r inc
ludi
ng o
pen
past
ure
and
rem
nant
/rege
nera
ting/
pl
ante
d in
dige
nous
veg
etat
ion.
S
trong
land
form
and
veg
etat
ion
rela
tions
hip
in c
ase
of R
angi
toto
. S
trong
land
form
/sea
rela
tions
hip
in
case
of M
otuk
orea
. Is
land
s ch
arac
teris
ed b
y pa
ttern
of
rock
y sh
orel
ine
and
cliff
s w
ith
sand
y be
ache
s an
d va
ryin
g am
ount
s of
indi
geno
us v
eget
atio
n,
parti
cula
rly p
öhut
ukaw
a.
Bui
lt m
odifi
catio
n (h
ouse
s)
extre
mel
y lim
ited
– re
late
d to
DoC
m
anag
emen
t & v
isito
r fac
ilitie
s.
All
isla
nds
in D
oC o
wne
rshi
p an
d ha
ve v
ery
stro
ng id
entit
y an
d se
nse
of p
lace
val
ues
for A
uckl
and
– pa
rticu
larly
Ran
gito
to.
Ret
entio
n of
indi
geno
us
vege
tatio
n, b
oth
inta
ct a
nd
rem
nant
, rei
nfor
cing
topo
grap
hy.
Inte
rpla
y of
pas
ture
and
rem
nant
an
d re
gene
ratin
g in
dige
nous
ve
geta
tion
impo
rtant
on
Mot
utap
u an
d M
otui
he.
La
ndfo
rm s
trong
ly e
xpre
ssed
and
ic
onic
.
75
Rak
ino
Isla
nd
Roc
ks a
nd H
eadl
ands
on
ly
Isla
nds
Und
evel
oped
coa
stlin
e.
Stro
ng la
ndfo
rm fr
ame
/ de
finiti
on.
Onl
y lo
w d
ensi
ty s
ubse
rvie
nt
deve
lopm
ent (
hous
es).
Coa
stal
edg
e, ro
cky
with
rock
sh
oals
and
isle
ts.
Mai
nly
land
form
va
lues
. P
oor v
eget
atio
n co
ver.
S
ome
pine
/mac
roca
rpa
and
rem
nant
poh
utuk
awa.
Ret
entio
n of
coa
stal
land
form
s an
d re
mna
nt p
ohut
ukaw
a.
24
Are
a N
umbe
r Lo
catio
n N
ame
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Des
crip
tors
A
dditi
onal
Info
rmat
ion
Key
ON
L El
emen
ts, F
eatu
res
&
Patte
rns
76
The
Noi
ses
Isla
nds
Und
evel
oped
coa
stlin
e.
Inta
ct v
eget
atio
n pa
ttern
re
info
rcin
g la
ndfo
rm.
Stro
ng la
ndfo
rm fr
ame
/ de
finiti
on.
Incl
udes
Dav
id R
ocks
and
Mar
ia
Isla
nd.
Inta
ct ro
cky
isle
ts, w
ith s
pars
e co
asta
l veg
etat
ion
cove
r
Ret
entio
n of
inte
rpla
y be
twee
n un
deve
lope
d co
asta
l lan
dfor
ms
and
vege
tatio
n co
ver t
hat
rein
forc
es to
pogr
aphy
77
Wai
heke
Isla
nd
Nor
ther
n H
eadl
ands
H
akai
man
go P
oint
to
One
tang
i Bay
Isla
nds
Larg
ely
unde
velo
ped
coas
tline
. V
eget
atio
n pa
ttern
re
info
rcin
g la
ndfo
rm a
nd
inte
rpla
y w
ith p
astu
re.
Stro
ng la
ndfo
rm fr
ame
/ de
finiti
on.
Onl
y lo
w d
ensi
ty s
ubse
rvie
nt
deve
lopm
ent (
hous
es).
Dra
mat
ic h
eadl
and
land
form
. C
oast
al p
ohut
ukaw
a in
ters
pers
ed
with
ste
ep c
liffs
, roc
k fa
ces,
pa
stur
e. L
imite
d fo
rmed
bui
ldin
g si
tes
(Tho
mps
on’s
Poi
nt) a
nd
hous
es g
ener
ally
sub
serv
ient
. S
ome
earth
wor
ks.
Coa
stal
land
form
s w
ith re
mna
nt
indi
geno
us v
eget
atio
n, p
artic
ular
ly
pohu
tuka
wa
rein
forc
ing
topo
grap
hy.
78
Wai
heke
Isla
nd
Eas
tern
End
Is
land
s U
ndev
elop
ed c
oast
line.
In
tact
veg
etat
ion
patte
rn
rein
forc
ing
land
form
, in
ters
pers
ed w
ith p
astu
re
and
vitic
ultu
re/o
live
plan
tings
. S
trong
land
form
fram
e /
defin
ition
. O
nly
low
den
sity
sub
serv
ient
de
velo
pmen
t (ho
uses
.
Com
bina
tion
of d
ram
atic
coa
stlin
e,
head
land
s, c
oves
and
esc
arpm
ents
w
ith re
mna
nt fo
rest
and
pas
ture
. In
clud
es P
uke
Ran
ge a
s a
maj
or
back
-dro
p to
the
east
ern
end
of th
e is
land
. Ba
sin
catc
hmen
ts o
f re
gene
ratio
n fo
rest
. La
rges
t co
ntig
uous
are
as o
f mat
ure
coas
tal
fore
st o
n W
aihe
ke.
Incl
udes
S
tone
y B
atte
r bou
lder
fiel
ds a
nd
vine
yard
/oliv
e gr
ove
deve
lopm
ent.
In
ters
pers
ed w
ith ta
raire
and
pür
iri
fore
st.
Stro
ng la
ndfo
rm.
Coa
stal
land
form
s w
ith in
tact
and
re
mna
nt in
dige
nous
veg
etat
ion,
re
info
rcin
g to
pogr
aphy
.
25
Are
a N
umbe
r Lo
catio
n N
ame
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Des
crip
tors
A
dditi
onal
Info
rmat
ion
Key
ON
L El
emen
ts, F
eatu
res
&
Patte
rns
79
Wai
heke
Isla
nd
Aw
aaw
aroa
Bay
&
Val
ley
Isla
nds
Und
evel
oped
coa
stlin
e In
tact
veg
etat
ion
patte
rn
rein
forc
ing
land
form
, pas
ture
in
terp
lay
Stro
ng la
ndfo
rm
fram
e/de
finiti
on
Onl
y lo
w d
ensi
ty s
ubse
rvie
nt
deve
lopm
ent (
hous
es)
Inta
ct a
nd re
gene
ratin
g na
tive
fore
st o
n co
asta
l rid
ges.
Eco
tone
th
roug
h to
sal
t wat
er w
etla
nd,
saltm
arsh
and
man
grov
es.
Som
e yo
ung
rege
nera
tion.
Inte
rpla
y be
twee
n in
dige
nous
ve
geta
tion
and
past
ure,
re
info
rcin
g to
pogr
aphy
.
80
Wai
heke
Isla
nd
Sou
th c
oast
he
adla
nds
(Wha
u P
oint
to A
waa
war
oa
Bay
)
Isla
nds
Und
evel
oped
coa
stlin
e.
Inta
ct v
eget
atio
n pa
ttern
re
info
rcin
g la
ndfo
rm.
Stro
ng la
ndfo
rm
fram
e/de
finiti
on.
Som
e ho
uses
/dev
elop
men
t.
Roc
ky c
oast
al h
eadl
ands
with
re
mna
nt p
öhut
ukaw
a an
d sm
all
pock
ets
of c
oast
al fo
rest
in
ters
pers
ed w
ith s
mal
l cov
es a
nd
bays
. S
ome
deve
lopm
ent a
nd
emer
ging
hou
ses.
Coa
stal
land
form
s an
d re
mna
nt
indi
geno
us v
eget
atio
n.
81
Wai
heke
Isla
nd
Wha
kane
wha
Is
land
s U
ndev
elop
ed c
oast
line.
In
tact
veg
etat
ion
patte
rn
rein
forc
ing
land
form
. S
trong
land
form
fra
me/
defin
ition
(bas
in)
Reg
iona
l par
k, w
etla
nds
and
re-
emer
gent
coa
stal
fore
st. R
egio
nal
park
cat
chm
ent b
asin
with
wet
land
, re
gene
ratin
g hi
ll sl
opes
with
co
ntig
uous
trac
ts o
f ind
igen
ous
fore
st.
Som
e m
atur
e st
ands
of
kahi
kate
a. B
irdlif
e.
Coa
stal
land
form
s, w
etla
nds
and
indi
geno
us v
eget
atio
n.
82
Wai
heke
Isla
nd
Sou
th-w
este
rn ro
cks
& Is
land
s
Isla
nds
Und
evel
oped
coa
stlin
e S
trong
land
form
fra
me/
defin
ition
Incl
udes
Mot
ukah
a an
d C
ruso
e Is
land
s an
d th
e th
ree
smal
l ro
cks/
knol
ls in
Oak
ura
Bay
. S
ome
vege
tatio
n, m
ainl
y la
ndfo
rm
char
acte
ristic
s.
Coa
stal
land
form
s an
d re
mna
nt
vege
tatio
n.
26
Are
a N
umbe
r Lo
catio
n N
ame
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Des
crip
tors
A
dditi
onal
Info
rmat
ion
Key
ON
L El
emen
ts, F
eatu
res
&
Patte
rns
83
Wai
heke
Isla
nd
Par
k P
oint
Hea
dlan
d Is
land
s S
trong
land
form
fra
me/
defin
ition
H
eadl
and
land
form
. S
ome
wee
d sp
ecie
s an
d ex
otic
s in
terv
ene.
G
ener
ally
inta
ct a
nd m
ixed
re
mna
nt s
crub
with
pas
ture
, som
e ex
otic
s. C
liffs
with
atte
ndan
t pö
hutu
kaw
a.
Coa
stal
land
form
s an
d re
mna
nt
vege
tatio
n, p
artic
ular
ly
pöhu
tuka
wa.
84
Pak
atoa
Isla
nd &
Ta
rahi
ki (S
hag)
Isla
nd
Isla
nds
Und
evel
oped
coa
stlin
e.
Inta
ct v
eget
atio
n pa
ttern
re
info
rcin
g la
ndfo
rm.
Stro
ng la
ndfo
rm fr
ame
/ de
finiti
on.
Coa
stal
edg
e, d
ram
atic
blu
ffs a
nd
rock
sho
als.
Nat
ive
vege
tatio
n.
Mai
nly
land
form
val
ues.
Ret
entio
n of
inte
rpla
y be
twee
n co
asta
l lan
dfor
ms
and
indi
geno
us
vege
tatio
n.
85
Pon
ui Is
land
Is
land
s U
ndev
elop
ed c
oast
line.
In
tact
veg
etat
ion
patte
rn
rein
forc
ing
land
form
, pas
ture
in
terp
lay.
S
trong
land
form
fram
e /
defin
ition
. O
nly
low
den
sity
sub
serv
ient
de
velo
pmen
t (ho
uses
).
Larg
e is
land
, dra
mat
ic c
oast
al
edge
with
clif
fs a
nd s
helte
red
beac
hes.
Ext
ensi
ve n
ativ
e ve
geta
tion
alon
g co
asta
l edg
e an
d va
lleys
. In
land
inte
rpla
y be
twee
n re
mna
nt fo
rest
, pas
ture
and
rolli
ng
ridge
land
form
s, a
lso
a fe
atur
e.
Ret
entio
n of
coa
stal
land
form
s an
d in
terp
lay
betw
een
indi
geno
us
vege
tatio
n an
d ru
ral p
astu
re
rein
forc
ing
topo
grap
hy.
27
Are
a N
umbe
r Lo
catio
n N
ame
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Des
crip
tors
A
dditi
onal
Info
rmat
ion
Key
ON
L El
emen
ts, F
eatu
res
&
Patte
rns
88
Aot
ea
Gre
at B
arrie
r Isl
and
(incl
udes
Kai
kour
a,
Bro
ken
& R
akitü
(A
rid) I
slan
ds)
Isla
nds
Und
evel
oped
coa
stlin
e.
Inta
ct v
eget
atio
n pa
ttern
re
info
rcin
g la
ndfo
rm.
Stro
ng la
ndfo
rm
fram
e/de
finiti
on.
Onl
y lo
w d
ensi
ty s
ubse
rvie
nt
deve
lopm
ent (
hous
es).
Inta
ct re
gene
ratin
g an
d re
mna
nt
indi
geno
us fo
rest
toge
ther
with
cl
early
arti
cula
ted
land
form
s th
at
inte
ract
ver
y st
rong
ly w
ith th
e se
as
arou
nd G
reat
Bar
rier.
Dra
mat
ic
skyl
ine
ridge
s an
d ro
ck o
utcr
ops.
S
tand
s of
mat
ure
rem
nant
fore
st.
Spe
ctac
ular
cen
tral s
pine
with
hi
ghpo
ints
, Mt H
obso
n,
Mat
awhe
ro/th
e P
inna
cles
etc
. P
ine
woo
dlot
s an
d sc
atte
red
rogu
e pi
nes.
Inc
lude
s so
me
smal
l ho
mes
tead
s bu
t exc
lude
s sm
all
settl
emen
ts a
nd s
ome
past
oral
and
fo
rest
are
as.
Incl
udes
the
harb
ours
eg
Por
t Fitz
roy
and
estu
arie
s eg
W
hang
apou
a. S
igni
fican
t DO
C
land
s.
Incl
udes
off
shor
e is
land
s eg
K
aiko
ura,
Bro
ken
and
Rak
itu (A
rid)
Isla
nds.
Ret
entio
n of
coa
stal
land
form
s,
indi
geno
us v
eget
atio
n an
d in
terp
lay
betw
een
vege
tatio
n an
d la
ndfo
rm/to
pogr
aphy
.
89
Hau
turu
Li
ttle
Bar
rier I
slan
d Is
land
s U
ndev
elop
ed c
oast
line
Inta
ct v
eget
atio
n pa
ttern
re
info
rcin
g la
ndfo
rm.
Stro
ng la
ndfo
rm fr
ame/
de
finiti
on.
Ext
ensi
ve in
tact
mat
ure
indi
geno
us
vege
tatio
n co
ver t
hat c
lear
ly
artic
ulat
es la
ndfo
rm.
Isla
nd is
ro
ughl
y sy
mm
etric
al w
ith a
num
ber
of ra
zor b
ack
ridge
s. C
oast
line
of
dram
atic
of s
heer
clif
fs, w
ith s
ome
boul
der b
each
es.
Stro
ng
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
coas
tline
and
su
rrou
ndin
g se
a. I
coni
c is
land
la
ndsc
ape.
Ow
ned
by D
oC a
nd
man
aged
as
Nat
ure
Res
erve
.
Ret
entio
n of
indi
geno
us
vege
tatio
n co
ver a
nd in
terp
lay
betw
een
vege
tatio
n an
d la
ndfo
rm/to
pogr
aphy
.
28
Are
a N
umbe
r Lo
catio
n N
ame
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Land
scap
e Ty
pe
Des
crip
tors
A
dditi
onal
Info
rmat
ion
Key
ON
L El
emen
ts, F
eatu
res
&
Patte
rns
Rod
ney
Dis
tric
t
86
Kaw
au Is
land
Is
land
s U
ndev
elop
ed c
oast
line.
In
tact
veg
etat
ion
patte
rn
rein
forc
ing
land
form
. S
trong
land
form
fram
e /
defin
ition
. O
nly
low
den
sity
sub
serv
ient
de
velo
pmen
t (ho
uses
).
Coa
stal
, int
act a
nd re
gene
ratin
g in
dige
nous
veg
etat
ion,
m
änuk
a/kä
nuka
, em
erge
nt k
auri,
pü
riri,
pöhu
tuka
wa
arou
nd c
oast
. W
inds
wep
t in
east
, mor
e sh
elte
red
in w
este
rn b
ays.
Whe
re h
ouse
s in
clud
ed th
ey a
re s
ubse
rvie
nt o
r sm
all s
cale
. E
xclu
des
coas
tal
deve
lopm
ent a
nd m
ore
dens
e ar
eas
of h
ouse
s in
bus
h as
wel
l as
mai
n pi
ne a
reas
. S
ome
indi
vidu
al
and
grou
ps o
f pin
es in
the
ON
L ar
ea.
Ret
entio
n of
coa
stal
land
form
s an
d in
dige
nous
veg
etat
ion
cove
r.
87
Mot
urek
arek
a Is
land
&
isle
ts
Isla
nds
Und
evel
oped
coa
stlin
e.
Inta
ct v
eget
atio
n pa
ttern
re
info
rcin
g la
ndfo
rm.
Stro
ng la
ndfo
rm fr
ame
/ de
finiti
on.
Col
lect
ion
of is
lets
, roc
k sh
oals
and
he
adla
nds
with
bea
ches
. D
ram
atic
la
ndfo
rm a
nd in
terp
lay
with
wat
er.
Veg
etat
ion
incl
udes
scr
uffy
pin
e an
d so
me
pohu
tuka
was
and
re
gene
ratin
g in
dige
nous
ve
geta
tion.
Ret
entio
n of
coa
stal
land
form
s an
d in
dige
nous
veg
etat
ion.