The predominance of the expert method

In Chapter 2 I discussed the typology of landscape assessment first developed by Uzzell (1991) and more recently modified by Swaffield and Foster (2000). All bar one of the statements of evidence presented assessments that were either exclusively or predominantly expert in approach in the terms of that typology. That is, they were based on the expert’s evaluation of the visual and physical attributes of the site and proposal based, largely on aesthetic, but also ecological, principles. All included detailed descriptions of the area of concern and the proposal although in one instance this was an abbreviated version of that provided in the underlying landscape assessment report. In each case an evaluation of these visual and physical attributes was made leading to conclusions regarding the appropriate outcome of the proposal at hand. That several of these assessments were not entirely expert in their approach, however, is interesting.

70

Riley’s statement of evidence referred to the development of a large, comprehensive, district landscape assessment. Essentially the landscapes of the area were characterised and identified (mapped) by expert analysis. He states that:

Evaluation is a complex phase requiring a significant component of judgement by the investigations team. To assist the team, both other experts and the community were consulted on landscape values.

This community consultation included public open days and public preference surveys, but he is clear that the final evaluations of landscape significance were based upon ‘expert, specialist assessment (albeit informed by wider stakeholder involvement) and public preference testing to illuminate the values’. The difference between expert ‘assessment’ and public ‘preference’ is interesting, echoing Cameron and implying a divide between the objective expert and the subjective public.

Rowan’s statements of evidence all related to the same appeal and indicated what I would call an ‘informed’ expert approach. This is not catered for in the Swaffield and Foster typology. Rowan uses the conclusions of sociocultural landscape perception studies undertaken by Fairweather and Swaffield (J R Fairweather, 2007; 1999; J R Fairweather & Swaffield, 2001; J R Fairweather et al., 2000; Swaffield & Fairweather, 2003) as a framework for undertaking his own expert analysis. In this way, rather than relying on classic aesthetic or ecological principles he effectively creates new principles based on community preferences (albeit aesthetic in nature) on which to base a part of his assessment.

These approaches are interesting in that they do not fit directly into the Swaffield and Foster typology. While Riley’s approach involves public preference testing he is clear that the final interpretation should be that of the expert. Rowan’s use of Fairweather and Swaffield’s work is similar, using empirically derived public preference information to develop a framework for expert analysis. This has echoes of the psychophysical approach to landscape assessment but in this case the bulk of the research was not undertaken with a view to its results creating generalizable principles. In Rileys’ case this indicates a consideration of community preference as having some importance in the overall assessment (and this is evinced quite strongly in the underlying assessment report). In Rowan’s, however, despite his use of sociocultural information in his assessment the focus remains on landscape as scenery.

While Lee provided an entirely expert assessment in the statements of evidence provided which related to one case, she took a different approach in the other case for which she provided her evidence. In this case the while the client was a local body the focus of the evidence was ‘to provide a landscape assessment of the proposed village and its appropriateness for the sustainability of heritage landscape values’. This was taken to mean that the focus of the evidence was to be on ‘the cultural heritage landscape values of the subject site and surrounding landscape to tangata whenua’. This is not necessarily Lee’s

71

personal interpretation but likely the interpretation of the employing agency. She goes on to say, in her evidence, ‘I have not assessed the cultural heritage landscape values for non tangata whenua (e.g. Pakeha) and acknowledge that these are also relevant to a full assessment of cultural landscape’. She continues to discuss the Cultural Values Model developed by Stevenson (2008) (see Chapter 2 above for a discussion of this model), and admits that she is reliant on the evidence of the Tangata Whenua. She continues to develop a modified version of the Pigeon Bay factors to provide a framework for the assessment of heritage landscapes. This includes the following factors for consideration and evaluation (these are their headings only):

Natural Science Values Time Depth

Tangata Whenua Value Cultural Diversity

Legibility and Evidential Values Shared and Recognised Aesthetic Values Significance.

Some aspects of this framework can only be answered by the Tangata Whenua and Lee eschews evaluating these aspects. What she does do in this regard is more akin to providing a platform for them to speak. For example, in regard to Tangata Whenua Values she writes:

D. Tangata Whenua Value

Cultural and spiritual heritage values for tangata whenua identified in accordance with tikanga Maori.

ExpBaileytion: The special status, importance and diversity of these peoples in Aotearoa New Zealand require specific assessment and recognition.

In accord with tikanga Maori I have obtained and sought to articulate something of the cultural and spiritual values of Te Wairoa ō Muriwai, both from pre-Tainui times and subsequently. Appropriately, Nat Green has recorded these in greater detail and the very high value to tangata whenua of the lands and waters of Te Wairoa is evident from this documentation. Te Wairoa is recognised by Ngāi Tai as entirely Awa Tapu. The wāhi tapu are recorded to stretch from Te Ruatō to Whakakaiwhara, and is not confined to the waterway.

Once establishing in this manner that the landscape is a cultural heritage landscape for the Tangata Whenua she then assesses the effects of the proposed plan change on these aspects of the landscape. In this way she uses sociocultural information to map the territory, so to speak, that is, to determine its significant features and the degree of importance of these features to Tangata Whenua. She then makes her assessment using her own expertise in the main, but deferring to Tangata Whenua at times. This is a strongly sociocultural approach to assessment which focuses heavily on the landscape as lived

72

experience, albeit that its focus was on that of one cultural grouping only. It provides something of a possible view of how an assessment based on the cultural values of Pakeha New Zealanders might be formed.