User group identification

As mentioned, New Zealanders value water for many reasons including economic, environmental, health, cultural and recreation uses (Morgan et al., 2002; Statistics New Zealand, 2004). Thus a number of different user groups of water can be identified in the context of Canterbury water and often, they can have varying needs or preferences. In this thesis, different user groups among the general public are identified in order to explore potential differences in the values held between these groups. This section provides a

discussion on different user groups including commercial agriculture group, recreationalists, environmentalists, cultural values group and non-users group; and how they could be

identified.

Commercial agriculture

Agricultural production contributes significantly to Canterbury’s economy. Out of the allocated freshwater 89 per cent is used for irrigation (MfE, 2010a) and it is estimated that agriculture contributes ten to eleven per cent of the region’s employment while irrigated land area contributes $800 million (net) of the national GDP at the farm-gate as estimated in 2007/2008, which is $1200 per hectare more than production under dryland conditions (ECan, 2011b). The importance for irrigation can be related to two reference points: for an individual farmer (e.g. a viable business or leaving the industry) and for regionally or nationally (e.g. products produced by different farmers) (Doak et al., 2004). For example Payne and Stevens (2010) interviews with farmers in Canterbury reviewed that farmers consider irrigation and water use efficiency as highly important to their farming systems.

Moreover, the benefits from irrigation for society are diverse including direct and indirect benefits; higher and more stable production, peace of mind from reliability, increase in

exports, more economic activities in rural areas, higher output from processing and supporting industries, and increases in farm prices (ECan, 2011b; Doak et al., 2004). Thus, while there are other related commercial uses of water, such as food manufacturing and hydro-electricity, farmers are a major user group for Canterbury freshwater resources. As the demand for irrigation is expected to increase, this leads to a concern about the security of water supply, particularly during dry seasons. Thus improving water use efficiency is a relevant issue (ECan, 2011b). Besides the quantity of water, farmers are also interested in water quality as

21

guidelines for adequate water quality is required for stock (Stevenson et al., 2010).

Consuming polluted water can cause diarrhoea, loss of milk production, miscarriages – even death – for livestock (PCE, 2012).

Recreationalists

Canterbury's rivers and lakes provide a great range of recreational possibilities that are important for local, domestic and international visitors (ECan, 2008). The examples of recreational uses include fishing, swimming, kayaking and walking along waterways. A MfE report (2004b, p. 10) divides water-based recreation activities into (1) general recreation including “low-cost, low-energy, low-skill-required, convenient activities that do not require specific water qualities” (such as picnicking or sightseeing) and (2) activities “that are relatively higher cost, require a high level of technical skill and equipment, and are more expensive and time demanding” (such as kayaking, fishing and other water sports).

Recreational activities create multiple benefits such as health and social benefits for individuals and communities, economic benefits from tourist activities and cultural benefits for both Māori and non-Māori (ECan, 2008). Recreational users have diverse demands on freshwater resources, from white water rafting to experiencing tranquil scenery (ECan, 2011b). Thus recreational users are concerned not only about location and access to sites (MfE, 2004b) but also water quality, river flows, scenery and management regimes (ECan, 2008). In order to provide for these values, CWMS has set management targets including for improving

environmental flows and water quality for swimming sites (Canterbury Water, n.d.).On the

downside some recreational activities such as off-road vehicles or motorised boats may also have some negative impacts on the ecosystem health and water quality (Depree, 2007; ECan, 2011b).

Environmentalists

“A healthy environment is fundamental to life, culture, society and to a strong economy” (ECan, 2011b, p.2). It is clear that many people are concerned about the environmental quality of freshwater resources; however, this thesis attempt to identify those people who have a greater concern for the environment. For these reasons, one of the user groups is considered as environmentalists; these are freshwater users who care mostly about the environmental quality of water.

22

In order to identify environmentalists within the survey participants, different attitude scales can be employed (Andersen et al., 2012). Examples of such scales include New

Environmental Paradigm (NEP) scale (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978; Dunlap et al., 2000) and the Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS) (Mayer et al., 2004). NEP was one of the first environmental attitude scale and it attempts to measure people’s level of the environmental concern (or ecological worldview) and this scale was updated in 2000 to include 15 related statements to be scaled from agree to disagree (Dunlap et al., 2000). CNS measures how respondents experience “sense of oneness” with the natural world and similarly also this includes 17 statements to be scaled from agree to disagree by; the main difference is that while NEP measures cognitive beliefs, CNS measures people’s affective or emotional

connection to the nature (Mayer et al., 2004). Recently, Andersen et al. (2012) adapted CNS

in their choice experiment study of water resources in Waikato, New Zealand. Due to the similarity of the valuation method (discrete choice modelling) and study context, this is a relevant example for this thesis how to identify environmentalists.

Cultural values of water

As mentioned earlier water has a high importance to Māori. It has a physical and spiritual meaning which can be seen for example, in the presence of healthy food-gathering (mahinga kai) locations and features in many stories about whānau and hapū (ECan, 2011b). Important for Māori are genealogy (whakapapa), their language (Te Reo Māori), customs (as reviewed by Houkamau & Sibley, 2010) and family relationships (whānau) (Awatere, 2008). While it is possible that Māori have a closer relationship with natural environment than non-Māori (Awatere, 2005) it can be expected that these two populations may differ also in their values for freshwater. However, identification of Māori is not straightforward as, although, some individuals might be Māori by descent, they may live Eurocentric (non-Māori) life (Awatere, 2008) and/or they may know little about their heritage or culture (Houkamau & Sibley, 2010).

Thus, identifying someone as Māori may involve more than self-stated ethnicity.

The literature includes several metrics to distinguish Māori cultural identity such asTe Hoe

Nuku Roa assessment (Durie, 1995), Multidimensional Model of Māori Identity and Cultural Engagement (MMM-ICE) (Houkamau & Sibley, 2010) and the Māori Cultural index

(Awatere, 2008). These metrics differ on the focus of the cultural dimension: linking a variety of cultural, ethnic and other indicators (e.g. economic and personal factors) in the Te Hoe Nuku Roa assessment, subjective “being Māori” identity in the MMM-ICE metric, and a

23

combination of self-identified Māori and participation to Māori institutions and society in the Māori Cultural index (Awatere, 2008; Durie, 1995; Houkamau & Sibley, 2010). One

approach is to combine the key elements of these different instruments in one set of attitudinal statements, as done in the above mention choice experiment study where respondents were identified either with a strong or weak relationship to Māori culture (Andersen et al., 2012). Non-users

Finally, there might be users of freshwater who are not currently using the resource but are concerned about it for the others. For example, these users can obtain utility from knowing that aquatic habitat is provided with a natural habitat (existence value) or that the restoration of rivers benefits the quality of habitat for the future generations (bequest value) (Loomis, 2006). In the economic framework of TEV these are considered as non-use (or passive-use) values.

In addition there can be common concerns across the user groups. One such concern is the value of a reliable supply of water for households which can be considered as a basic human need (Briscoe, 2005). For example, adequate quality drinking water may need to be treated in the future if water quality declines under the drinking water standards. This is a general concern for Cantabrians (Baskaran et al., 2009; Cook, 2008). Thus, in general, changes in supply or quality of water may affect the standard of living regardless the user group. In conclusion, the general public can hold a variety of values for freshwater while it can be hypothesised that these values can differ across different user types of water. The above discussion included factors that are important for each user group but also ways to identify the different groups. As highlighted within the Māori user group, the identification of the people as different user types of water is not always straightforward. On the one hand, although someone is biologically Māori, the lifestyle factors may not be aligned with this user group. On the other hand, may individuals may associate with many user groups. However, for the practicality, the aim is to assign people into a a group with their main user type of water (rather than into multiple groups) in order to explore the values held by different groups. A relevant example of a practical approach to identify and assign people into different user

groups was provided by Andersen et al. (2012). The Andersen et al.’sstudy used attitudinal

statements to classify respondents with their Māori cultural and environmental identity using cluster analysis (for Māori culture groups) and adding up the five-point likert-scales with a threshold value (for the environmental connection). The same approach can be adapted here

24

to identify commercial agriculture users, recreationalists, environmentalists, Māori and non- users. This approach is relevant as it is pretested in the empirical study with a similar study method and context (choice experiment application for the freshwater valuation in New Zealand); yet in contrast to Andersen et al. study, this thesis would require an identification of five user groups which consequently will limit the number of attitudinal statements presented for each group.