title: INTRODUCTION Establishing, placing, engaging and doing feminist geographies

authors: Johnston, Lynda

abstract: This Handbook reflects the immense depth of interest, developments, directions and tensions in gender and feminist geographies. It brings together 48 chapters by new, emerging and established scholars, activists and artists in order to highlight original international work in gender and feminist geographies. For nearly five decades –  from the 1970s onwards –  geographers have employed feminist and other critical social theories to understand gender, power, place and space. There is now a vast and considerable literature in gender and feminist geographies, and also a growing number of scholars who bring feminist theory and praxis to diverse topics and locations. There are unmistakable continuities between earlier compendiums, such as Geographies of New Femininities (Laurie et al. 2014), Feminist Geography in Practice (Moss 2002) and A Companion to Feminist Geography (Nelson and Seager 2005) and this Handbook. The differences between earlier volumes and this one suggest that the field of scholarship continues to mature in theory and practice, in part by diversifying the voices and perspectives that refocus its scholarship towards new questions, new approaches and new critical theories. This Handbook aims to provide a window into established gender and feminist geographies while pointing readers towards new directions. We, as editors, are deeply honoured to be caretakers of the chapters. From the outset, our main goal has been to represent the diversity of research, different theoretical frameworks, the variety of methodological tools and the multiplicity of practices within gender and feminist geographies. The range and merit of different approaches to gender and feminist geographies are based on different interpretations of what is regarded as salient and significant for scholars and activists. Where we have succeeded in achieving our goal, we are indebted to the contributors to this compendium; where we have failed, we look with hope towards the scholars who will generate their own inspired points of departure.

text: INTRODUCTION Establishing, placing, engaging and doing feminist geographies This Handbook reflects the immense depth of interest, developments, directions and tensions in gender and feminist geographies. It brings together 48 chapters by new, emerging and established scholars, activists and artists in order to highlight original international work in gender and feminist geographies. For nearly five decades –  from the 1970s onwards –  geographers have employed feminist and other critical social theories to understand gender, power, place and space. There is now a vast and considerable literature in gender and feminist geographies, and also a growing number of scholars who bring feminist theory and praxis to diverse topics and locations. There are unmistakable continuities between earlier compendiums, such as Geographies of New Femininities (Laurie et al. 2014), Feminist Geography in Practice (Moss 2002) and A Companion to Feminist Geography (Nelson and Seager 2005) and this Handbook. The differences between earlier volumes and this one suggest that the field of scholarship continues to mature in theory and practice, in part by diversifying the voices and perspectives that refocus its scholarship towards new questions, new approaches and new critical theories. This Handbook aims to provide a window into established gender and feminist geographies while pointing readers towards new directions. We, as editors, are deeply honoured to be caretakers of the chapters. From the outset, our main goal has been to represent the diversity of research, different theoretical frameworks, the variety of methodological tools and the multiplicity of practices within gender and feminist geographies. The range and merit of different approaches to gender and feminist geographies are based on different interpretations of what is regarded as salient and significant for scholars and activists. Where we have succeeded in achieving our goal, we are indebted to the contributors to this compendium; where we have failed, we look with hope towards the scholars who will generate their own inspired points of departure.

year: 2020

title: The freshwater aquarium trade as a vector for incidental invertebrate fauna

authors: Duggan, Ian C.

subjects: pet trade

abstract: The aquarium trade has a long history of transporting and introducing fish, plants and snails into regions where they are not native. However, other than snails, research on species carried “incidentally” rather than deliberately by this industry is lacking. I sampled invertebrates in the plankton, and from water among bottom stones, of 55 aquaria from 43 New Zealand households. I recorded 55 incidental invertebrate taxa, including copepods, ostracods, cladocerans, molluscs, mites, flatworms and nematodes. Six were known established non-indigenous species, and eight others were not previously recorded from New Zealand. Of the latter, two harpacticoid copepod species, Nitokra pietschmanni and Elaphoidella sewelli, are not native to or known from New Zealand, demonstrating the aquarium trade continues to pose an invasion risk for incidental fauna. The remaining six species were littoral/benthic rotifers with subtropical/tropical affinities; these may or may not be native, as research on this group is limited. A variety of behaviours associated with the set-up and keeping of home aquaria were recorded (e.g., fish and plants in any home were sourced from stores, wild caught, or both, and cleaning methods varied), which made prediction of “high risk” behaviours difficult. However, non-indigenous species had a greater probability of being recorded in aquaria containing aquatic plants and in those that were heated. Methods for disposal of aquarium wastes ranged from depositing washings on the lawn or garden (a low risk for invasion) to disposing of water into outdoor ponds or storm-water drains (a higher risk). It is recommended that aquarium owners be encouraged to pour aquarium wastes onto gardens or lawns—already a common method of disposal—as invasion risk will be minimised using this method.

text: The freshwater aquarium trade as a vector for incidental invertebrate fauna The aquarium trade has a long history of transporting and introducing fish, plants and snails into regions where they are not native. However, other than snails, research on species carried “incidentally” rather than deliberately by this industry is lacking. I sampled invertebrates in the plankton, and from water among bottom stones, of 55 aquaria from 43 New Zealand households. I recorded 55 incidental invertebrate taxa, including copepods, ostracods, cladocerans, molluscs, mites, flatworms and nematodes. Six were known established non-indigenous species, and eight others were not previously recorded from New Zealand. Of the latter, two harpacticoid copepod species, Nitokra pietschmanni and Elaphoidella sewelli, are not native to or known from New Zealand, demonstrating the aquarium trade continues to pose an invasion risk for incidental fauna. The remaining six species were littoral/benthic rotifers with subtropical/tropical affinities; these may or may not be native, as research on this group is limited. A variety of behaviours associated with the set-up and keeping of home aquaria were recorded (e.g., fish and plants in any home were sourced from stores, wild caught, or both, and cleaning methods varied), which made prediction of “high risk” behaviours difficult. However, non-indigenous species had a greater probability of being recorded in aquaria containing aquatic plants and in those that were heated. Methods for disposal of aquarium wastes ranged from depositing washings on the lawn or garden (a low risk for invasion) to disposing of water into outdoor ponds or storm-water drains (a higher risk). It is recommended that aquarium owners be encouraged to pour aquarium wastes onto gardens or lawns—already a common method of disposal—as invasion risk will be minimised using this method.

year: 2010

title: Te ao hurihuri : iwi identification in the census

authors: Kukutai, Tahu

abstract: As the flagship of official statistics, the national population census is an important forum for the recognition of indigenous peoples in their homelands and territories (United Nations, 2008). While most governments worldwide count and classify their populations by ethnicity, New Zealand is rare in enabling multiple expressions of indigenous identity in the census. Since 1991, it has been possible to identify as Māori in three ways: by descent, ethnicity and iwi (tribal) affiliation (see Figure 1). The Māori descent population is the largest— in 2013, just under 669,000 individuals ticked the Māori descent box. The number identifying as Māori by ethnicity - intended as a measure of cultural belonging - was substantially lower at just under 600,000. Most of the remaining 69,000 Māori descendants identified solely as NZ European. In 2013 nearly 83 per cent of Māori descendants (n=535,941) reported belonging to at least one iwi. Of those that did not report an iwi affiliation, 40 per cent did not identify as Māori by ethnicity either.

text: Te ao hurihuri : iwi identification in the census As the flagship of official statistics, the national population census is an important forum for the recognition of indigenous peoples in their homelands and territories (United Nations, 2008). While most governments worldwide count and classify their populations by ethnicity, New Zealand is rare in enabling multiple expressions of indigenous identity in the census. Since 1991, it has been possible to identify as Māori in three ways: by descent, ethnicity and iwi (tribal) affiliation (see Figure 1). The Māori descent population is the largest— in 2013, just under 669,000 individuals ticked the Māori descent box. The number identifying as Māori by ethnicity - intended as a measure of cultural belonging - was substantially lower at just under 600,000. Most of the remaining 69,000 Māori descendants identified solely as NZ European. In 2013 nearly 83 per cent of Māori descendants (n=535,941) reported belonging to at least one iwi. Of those that did not report an iwi affiliation, 40 per cent did not identify as Māori by ethnicity either.

year: 2015