title: Urgent need for protection of New Zealand’s coastal landscape

authors: Healy, Terry R.

subjects: coastal landscape protection

abstract: Alarm bells for protection of coastal landscape should be well and truly ringing! This is exemplified by the great rush toward “life-style block” subdivision of large coastal tracts (simply glance at the “NZ Herald” Real Estate section), and recent cases such as the University of Auckland’s hedonistic attempt to sell prime coastal land on the scenic Coromandel coastline for development. Coastal landscape protection is already embedded in the Resource Management Act, and most explicitly stated under S6 (“Matters of National Importance”). S6a refers to “preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment” – which implicitly includes landscape - and
S6b “the protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate subdivision….”. Unfortunately landscape protection is rarely considered seriously as a major impediment to new sub-divisional developments along areas of largely undeveloped coast. There are compelling reasons for protection of coastal landscape. These include (i) reduction in long term economic return from tourism from ribbon development along the coast, (ii) huge increases in the cost of supplying infrastructure (roading, electricity, water supply, sewage disposal) to remote coastal wild and scenic locations – which the entire community contributes major cost for rather than the select few beneficiaries at the end of the line; and (iii) the improved infrastructure amenities, facilities and economic benefits possible from concentration of capital development into nucleated coastal settlements. But the major problem is the creeping ribbon development along the coast – leading to significant irreversible impact on the “vistas of nature” – especially along the scenic coasts of Northland, the Coromandel Peninsula, the central North Island and the Marlborough Sounds.

text: Urgent need for protection of New Zealand’s coastal landscape Alarm bells for protection of coastal landscape should be well and truly ringing! This is exemplified by the great rush toward “life-style block” subdivision of large coastal tracts (simply glance at the “NZ Herald” Real Estate section), and recent cases such as the University of Auckland’s hedonistic attempt to sell prime coastal land on the scenic Coromandel coastline for development. Coastal landscape protection is already embedded in the Resource Management Act, and most explicitly stated under S6 (“Matters of National Importance”). S6a refers to “preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment” – which implicitly includes landscape - and
S6b “the protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate subdivision….”. Unfortunately landscape protection is rarely considered seriously as a major impediment to new sub-divisional developments along areas of largely undeveloped coast. There are compelling reasons for protection of coastal landscape. These include (i) reduction in long term economic return from tourism from ribbon development along the coast, (ii) huge increases in the cost of supplying infrastructure (roading, electricity, water supply, sewage disposal) to remote coastal wild and scenic locations – which the entire community contributes major cost for rather than the select few beneficiaries at the end of the line; and (iii) the improved infrastructure amenities, facilities and economic benefits possible from concentration of capital development into nucleated coastal settlements. But the major problem is the creeping ribbon development along the coast – leading to significant irreversible impact on the “vistas of nature” – especially along the scenic coasts of Northland, the Coromandel Peninsula, the central North Island and the Marlborough Sounds.

year: 2003

title: Differential Reinforcement of Low-Rate Behaviour In The Brush Tail Possum  Explicit Alternative Responses During Differential  Reinforcement of Low-Rate Responding

authors: King, Thea Turora

subjects: DRL

abstract: Differential reinforcement of low rate responding (DRL) can be defined as withholding reinforcement until probability of a target behaviour has decreased to a particular criterion. Typically, the DRL lowers the overall rate of a specific target response by incrementally increasing the time interval between responses and delivering reinforcement contingent upon a response occurring at or above the specified time interval. The present study parametrically examined six brush tail possum’s performance on DRL to investigate in the first instance whether or not the possums could perform on DRL and if so, how well they could do at the task. The study also sought to investigate if DRL performance could be improved, by providing a second response lever as an explicit option to perform an alternative behaviour. Two Experiments were carried out. In Experiment 1, possums were expected to perform on a DRL schedule with one response lever (DRL lever) that produced access to food. In Experiment 2, a second response lever was available independent to the DRL lever and accessible for the duration of the experiment. The second lever provided no access to food. The possums were expected to respond on the second lever during the time delays (inter response time (IRT)) to assist mediating the time interval. Initial inspections of the data in Experiment 1 and Experiment 2 showed the possums performed efficiently on the DRL schedule up to around 15-s. Closer inspection of mean IRT data showed more unsuccessful responses than successful responses at around DRL 10-s and higher. Most of the possums maintained consistent responding below the DRL but sustained enough responding above the DRL to go on to higher DRL criterions. In spite of the larger number of unsuccessful responses some of the possums still failed to reach higher DRL criterions. Further inspection of the procedure revealed that at longer DRL as long as the possums had enough time (in days) to obtain the required number of reinforcers to meet the DRL, the procedure would automatically increment to the next DRL criterion giving the impression that they were able to perform the DRL. Furthermore, excessively long IRT were reinforced in the procedure. The provision of a second response lever in Experiment 2 was of no consequence contrary to expectations. This thesis purports that possums did not respond to the DRL contingencies and that performance that appears as if they did respond was an accidental by-product of the procedural arrangement.

text: Differential Reinforcement of Low-Rate Behaviour In The Brush Tail Possum  Explicit Alternative Responses During Differential  Reinforcement of Low-Rate Responding Differential reinforcement of low rate responding (DRL) can be defined as withholding reinforcement until probability of a target behaviour has decreased to a particular criterion. Typically, the DRL lowers the overall rate of a specific target response by incrementally increasing the time interval between responses and delivering reinforcement contingent upon a response occurring at or above the specified time interval. The present study parametrically examined six brush tail possum’s performance on DRL to investigate in the first instance whether or not the possums could perform on DRL and if so, how well they could do at the task. The study also sought to investigate if DRL performance could be improved, by providing a second response lever as an explicit option to perform an alternative behaviour. Two Experiments were carried out. In Experiment 1, possums were expected to perform on a DRL schedule with one response lever (DRL lever) that produced access to food. In Experiment 2, a second response lever was available independent to the DRL lever and accessible for the duration of the experiment. The second lever provided no access to food. The possums were expected to respond on the second lever during the time delays (inter response time (IRT)) to assist mediating the time interval. Initial inspections of the data in Experiment 1 and Experiment 2 showed the possums performed efficiently on the DRL schedule up to around 15-s. Closer inspection of mean IRT data showed more unsuccessful responses than successful responses at around DRL 10-s and higher. Most of the possums maintained consistent responding below the DRL but sustained enough responding above the DRL to go on to higher DRL criterions. In spite of the larger number of unsuccessful responses some of the possums still failed to reach higher DRL criterions. Further inspection of the procedure revealed that at longer DRL as long as the possums had enough time (in days) to obtain the required number of reinforcers to meet the DRL, the procedure would automatically increment to the next DRL criterion giving the impression that they were able to perform the DRL. Furthermore, excessively long IRT were reinforced in the procedure. The provision of a second response lever in Experiment 2 was of no consequence contrary to expectations. This thesis purports that possums did not respond to the DRL contingencies and that performance that appears as if they did respond was an accidental by-product of the procedural arrangement.

year: 2017

title: The Buried Village, New Zealand - an example of dark tourism?

authors: Ryan, Chris

subjects: dark tourism

abstract: In 1886, the explosion of Mount Tarawera resulted in the loss of 150 lives and the burial of the village of Te Wairoa, the base from which tourists had visited the Pink and White Terraces, a silicone-stained natural formation then advertised as one of the natural wonders of the world. Since 1931, the buried site has itself been a tourist attraction and Smith and Croy have argued that it serves as an example of “dark tourism”. This paper uses a different methodology to argue that Lennon and Foley's original definition of dark tourism is precise, that the buried village of Te Wairoa does not meet that specification, but does support the model suggested by Sharpley, that the site's characteristics are those of grey tourism supply. However, the findings derived from a sample of over 600 respondents indicate that sites are complex packages of potential experiences, and are potentially multi-faceted in terms of the experiences they offer. It is also suggested that cultural components might play a role in the experience of what is “dark” about a site.

text: The Buried Village, New Zealand - an example of dark tourism? In 1886, the explosion of Mount Tarawera resulted in the loss of 150 lives and the burial of the village of Te Wairoa, the base from which tourists had visited the Pink and White Terraces, a silicone-stained natural formation then advertised as one of the natural wonders of the world. Since 1931, the buried site has itself been a tourist attraction and Smith and Croy have argued that it serves as an example of “dark tourism”. This paper uses a different methodology to argue that Lennon and Foley's original definition of dark tourism is precise, that the buried village of Te Wairoa does not meet that specification, but does support the model suggested by Sharpley, that the site's characteristics are those of grey tourism supply. However, the findings derived from a sample of over 600 respondents indicate that sites are complex packages of potential experiences, and are potentially multi-faceted in terms of the experiences they offer. It is also suggested that cultural components might play a role in the experience of what is “dark” about a site.

year: 2006