Skip to main content.

5.  The Research Results

5.10.  Suggestions for better meeting users' future information needs

27% of respondents made a suggestion for improving the next national level state of the environment report, due for publication in 2012.

Suggestions were, again, wide ranging and in many cases related to the very specific information needs and/or perspectives of the respondent.  However, the broad areas of focus are summarised below.

Suggestions relating to the 2012 report (n=254)
  %
There should be more interpretation/recommendations on the state of the environment, where it is heading, actions that should be taken and potential solutions. 6
New/more information should be included regarding specific areas (e.g. hazardous wastes related to industry users, sustainability/social sustainability, air monitoring, water resources and quality, land issues by sub-sector) 4
Reduce the size of the report/it is too thick and bulky (perhaps have a thinner report, with accompanying CD) 3
Make core indicators/data available at regional level 2
Develop a web-based/online report that can be kept live/regularly updated 2
Improve the colour contrast on graphs and charts, to make them easier to read 2
More up-to-date data is required (some is very outdated) 2
Include a comparative analysis with other countries/regions 1
Ensure there is integration with other central government reports, e.g. SNZ, MSD, MED, MCH indicator reports 1
The report needs more integration/linkages between chapters, e.g. between economy and environment 1
Other suggestions 8
Respondents who made a suggestion 27%
Average number of suggestions made 1.2

 

20% of respondents expressed a suggestion relating to the interim updates of the environmental ‘indicators’ contained in the 2007 report.  The main suggestions have been summarised as follows:

Suggestions relating to interim reporting (n=254)
  %
Have annual/regular updates of key indicators (the indicators need to be measurable and linked to effects) 3
Include more information/indicators in specific areas (e.g. biodiversity, contamination of shellfish, household consumption, the rural sector and its impact, fertilizers, land use by category, indigenous plants and birds, impacts on historic sites) 3
Have consistent indicators/indicators derived from the same base data (i.e. consistency across Regional Councils) 2
Show the key indicators at Regional level 2
Hold workshops, email groups, etc – so people with expertise can contribute 2
Update regularly, as new information becomes available (perhaps online) 2
Keep a fixed update period, so that we know when one is due 1
Make it brief/short and sharp and easy to read 1
Clearly highlight the updates/new data 1
Other suggestions 5
Respondents who made a suggestion 20%
Average number of suggestions made 1.1

 

5.11.  Overview of the group discussions

5.11.1.  Overall reaction to the Environment New Zealand 2007 report

A range of opinion was expressed by the group participants.  One group was predominantly complementary of the report, the other highly critical.  In the case of the latter group, there were major issues underlying their opinions, which are briefly outlined in Section 5.11.5 below.

5.11.2.  Presentational elements of the report

The participants in both groups generally regarded the overall presentational elements of the report in a positive light.  They described it as:

  • clearly produced/well presented, with good graphics
  • having a user-friendly layout (which is “not too technical and is easy to refer to”)

This is consistent with the findings of the online survey (see Section 5.7).

5.11.3.  The report content

The group participants mentioned a number of report elements that they found positive.  These included:

  • the fact that a start has been made on the publication of environmental indicators (a concept that they consider “important/essential/vital to New Zealand’s future”)

  • the ‘At a glance’ summary section (was described as “a good concept/useful”)

  • a number of participants felt the overall report provides “a good snapshot in time at a national level.”

5.11.4.  Areas for improvement

Various suggestions were made regarding the 2012 report and the provision of interim updates.  Of particular mention were:

  • Participants in both groups felt there should be regular updates (at least 12-monthly) of key indicators/data
  • Many of the participants would like online access to the data (or at least the ability to analyse the data that the report is based on)
  • Environmental indicators are needed at Regional level (many hold this view)

  • There could be more emphasis placed on trends in future (e.g. “More emphasis on trends, that is the important information, and less on the pretty pictures of people skiing.”)

  • There could be more cross-linking of data/chapters/information.

  • The full report should be updated (at least) 5-yearly, rather than 10-yearly.

  • There is a need to focus on practical outcomes (i.e. “what will be done”), so that the focus on the report doesn’t get lost following its publication.
  • Consistent with the online quantitative survey, there were various requests for more specific information that met the reader’s individual needs, e.g. biodiversity needs emphasis on marine, not just terrestrial and fresh water; the Maori heritage issue needs to be addressed.

5.11.5.  Major issues that emerged in the group discussions

Participants in one of the focus groups, in particular, were adamant that they wished to address some of the major issues underlying the preparation of the report, rather than the presentational aspects of the report itself.  To summarise, the points they particularly wanted to convey were:

  • There should be a review of who actually does the report in future, to ensure “the independence/validity of the information provided. Whilst some group participants initially felt it would best be the responsibility of the Commissioner for the Environment, it was noted that the Commissioner’s office does not have adequate resource or funding. It was then suggested that perhaps it should be given to an independent board, as per the process in Australia.”
  • The list of environmental indicators needs to be revisited, to decide the most important indicators on which to focus for the future.
  • There needs to be more attention paid to ensuring that the base data is robust, transparent and is captured by consistent methods – to ensure its credibility.
  • The facts should be separated from the policy, because the 2007 report contains “too much spin and recasting, especially from some government departments that have set out to defend pretty terrible records.

[ |