Page Quicklinks

All images courtesy of Hugh Benson

Funded Years: 2020/21 2021/22

Research Brief

Anecdotal evidence in the kauri dieback space suggests ‘local’ actors — those residing in the area — are among the least likely to engage in pro-environmental action such as cleaning shoes, staying on tracks and staying out of closed areas. The reasons for this have yet to be formally explored, but possible reasons may be a sense of forest ownership and a resistance to authority, complacency, habit, lack of an immediate and tangible link between personal actions and environmental impact, external attributions, and the bystander effect (“no one else is doing it, so why should I?”).

This research takes a case-study approach to examining the peri-urban community of Titirangi in Auckland, surrounded by kauri forest. Peri-urban areas are dynamic environments with a diverse range of residents, including residential, commercial, recreational and varied agricultural users (Bunker & Houston, 2003; Low Choy et al., 2007). This diversity presents unique environmental management challenges, including the necessity to appeal to a broad range of perspectives. It is often assumed that local communities are a homogenous group, but peri-urban areas likely consist of many subcultures all with different values and ways of interacting with the landscape. Some of these values may overlap while some may conflict, at times even within the same person.

Guided by Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), a triangulation approach will help pinpoint areas where values and meanings diverge and converge across the community (if they do). This approach will have utility for wider community engagement initiatives, which seek to target the shared values and underlying motivators of the community. It also allows for audience segmentation by recognising that, if shared values are lacking, specific interventions may need to be tailored according to the needs and psychological mindset of each type of resident. The research will also utilise the COM-B (capability, opportunity and motivation - behaviour) model as a theoretical framework. This model recognises that at any given moment, a particular behaviour will occur only when the person concerned has the capability and opportunity to engage in the behaviour and is more motivated to enact that behaviour than any other behaviours (West & Michie, 2020).

Research Observations

Feelings about kauri

The majority of Titirangi residents we interviewed generally cared deeply about the bush and held kauri trees in the highest regard, as icons of the bush and symbols of survival. Many also suggested a spiritual, emotional connection to kauri.

Do something positive to protect the bush

Many groups and initiatives from this community form around concern for and awareness of the environment, from ad-hoc grass roots neighbourhood networks, to formalised and regular volunteer task-forces.

Do something visible

With each initiative, the problem and its cause was easily understood and clearly visible, as was the tactical solution to remedy it. Actions like trapping, baiting, weeding and planting all provide immediate and tangible outcomes, the impact of which can be measured and made visible.

... in your spare time

Each of these initiatives required a time and energy investment outside or on top of their usual lifestyle - like giving up a Saturday morning to pull weeds in your street. Participants in our study who took part in these initiatives felt useful, like they were making a contribution to the betterment of their environment.

Dieback is different

Kauri dieback presents a different shaped challenge to others. While it's recognised as a threat to a precious part of their environment, there's significant doubt as to how well the condition is understood, either the cause or the remedy. On top of this, dieback presents an invisible threat, or one very difficult to detect, either on which trees have the condition, or whether remedial actions are effective, amplified by the years-long feedback loop.

Doubt about dieback

So, while being aware there is an issue, a sense of doubt surrounds the evidence supporting the appropriateness of the response. This results in much conjecture and theorising, leading to a sense of ambiguity around all aspects of the way kauri dieback is being managed. This lack of clarity is compounded by a lack of tangible or visible results, feedback or information from leading agencies. Doubt about dieback leaves a feeling of being kept in the dark, amplifying doubt around what's being done.

... compounded by sacrifice

In addition to this, the impact on their lifestyle is significant, particularly when viewed in contrast to actions asked of them in order to help protect against other environmental threats such as rodents and weeds. Rather than being asked to do something additional to the lifestyle they enjoy (baiting, trapping weeding etc.) they are being asked NOT to do something they greatly value as a leisure and practical asset (use tracks). The impact on their lifestyle is a reduction, taking away this treasured amenity, compared to asking them to take part in a working bee etc. to pull weeds.

Disillusioned and distrustful

On top of feelings of doubt and being in the dark, participants felt disillusioned by the agencies tasked with understanding the issue and driving the initiatives, to the point they don't trust the way decisions are being made around how dieback is being resourced and managed. This distrust adds to the frustrations many residents feel.

More, please.

Most participants wanted more to be done; more clout behind the mandate, greater urgency, more research, more funding, more feedback. Even if the feedback was inconclusive, 'we don't know' or resulted in greater restrictions. Participants felt a greater level of transparency would help raise their confidence and relieve frustration.

Project Resources