Values and decision-making in the genesis of Paparoa National Park

Abstract

Values have been identified as a cause of conflict in decisions about natural resources (Norton and Roper-Lindsay, 1992; Castle, 1993; Memon, 1993). To help understand these conflicts, this thesis addresses the question "Does the natural resource decision-making process in New Zealand acknowledge and incorporate different values?" Values are visions of the world and how it should be. When different groups in society have a different vision of the future of an area or a resource, conflict can occur, particularly when the visions are incompatible. The genesis of Paparoa National Park provides an example of a value conflict. On one side were those who wanted to use the forests and minerals for anthropocentric, especially economic, means and ends. This is consistent with the dominant social paradigm developed by Pirages (1977), Pirages and Ehlrich (1977) and Dunlap and Van Liere (1978 and 1984). On the other side were those who wanted to see the area protected for recreational and environmental reasons. This position is consistent with the new environmental paradigm developed by Dunlap and Van Liere (1978) and Drengson (1980).

In the Paparoa case, under the Westminster system of democratic government, these two positions were in conflict. Effectively the State had dual roles in natural resource development as it was both a resource developer, with a mandate reflecting the dominant social paradigm, and an advocate for environmental values (i.e., reflecting values consistent with the new environmental paradigm). Within this model of government, a variety of mechanisms have been used to include values in natural resource decision-making. These include formal public participation processes, 'deals', negotiation, mediation, lobbying, political fiat, agency/clientele relations, and the courts. In the genesis of Paparoa National Park, public participation and 'deals' were the most important mechanisms used. Using a qualitative methodology I examine the use of these techniques.

The conclusion of the research is that although techniques such as public participation or 'deals' are useful for identifying value positions, they are not suitable for 'judging' between value positions. Ultimately, this is a subjective decision, which, in a representative system of democracy a 'jury' of elected representatives decides upon. The lesson from the Paparoa National Park experience is that if different values are to be considered in the final decision, then decision-making processes need to be conducted honestly and openly, with all sides listening and respecting each others positions. Such facilitation may require the presence of a strong personality.