By Leah Churchward
New tools and interdisciplinary approaches are required for conservation in today’s climate, in particular for ecological restoration. In our rapidly changing world, it is important to be able to recognize these new tools and approaches and support them so that they can be funded, developed, and implemented on a large scale. In the case of ecological restoration, this might mean taking a step back from nature reserves and other traditional management methods and focusing on a tool from another discipline. Ecological restoration has the potential to be much more than returning plants and animals to where we found them. The development of the bionic leaf is one example of a newer technology that was created from an interdisciplinary background of biology and chemistry. It has the potential to serve a major role in modern ecological restoration and to reduce the need for ecological restoration as a whole.
The bionic leaf was developed by Pamela Silver, a professor of biochemistry at Harvard Medical School, and Daniel Nocera, a professor of energy (also at Harvard University). It is able to split water molecules from natural solar energy and to produce liquid fuels from hydrogen eating bacteria (1). The bacterium Ralstonia eutropha, in combination with the catalysts of the artificial leaf, is used as a hybrid inorganic-biological system. (2) This combination is able to drive an artificial photosynthetic process for carbon fixation into biomass and liquid fuels (2). This artificial photosynthesis transpires through the solar electricity from the photovoltaic panel which is enough to power the chemical process that splits water into hydrogen and oxygen. (7) The pre-starved microbes then feed on the hydrogen and convert CO2 in the air into alcohol fuels. (7)
Initially, the bionic leaf was created to make renewable energy accessible at a local scale for developing communities that are without an electricity grid (3). This new technology also has the potential to intake carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (mentioned above), reduce CO2 emissions and pollution, and provide cleaner fertiliser. In the current era of the Anthropocene, human practices and behaviours have had an impact on the entire planet. One of the most significant consequences is the unprecedented influx of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last century. This is taking its toll on ecosystems around the world and the unique flora and fauna that inhabit them. The field of ecological restoration is a result of the efforts to restore ecosystems negatively affected by anthropogenic activities.
A majority of the world’s population live in cities that are near biodiversity hotspots. There are 24 megacities (cities with 10 million inhabitants or more) located in lesser developed regions, with an additional 10 cities in developing nations projected to become megacities sometime between 2016 and 2030. (4) With over half of the world’s population living in cities, a great deal of power and fuel is required, and currently a majority of the world’s energy consumption is from fossil fuels. These same fossil fuels are responsible for the increased CO2 in the atmosphere. The first opportunity the bionic leaf brings for ecological restoration is by removing CO2 while performing artificial photosynthesis to begin to restore the atmosphere’s composition to pre-industrial times. (2) The second is by bringing clean and accessible fuel to developing communities, eliminating the need to build facilities such as mining operations, and reducing the need for ecological restoration to begin with. (6) This will create a diminishing reliance on fossil fuels and the land, air, and sea pollution that comes with their use. Besides pollution, climate change has affected the timing of reproduction in animals and plants, the migration of animals, the length of the growing season, species distributions and population sizes, and the frequency of disease and pest outbreaks. (5) It is projected to affect all aspects of biodiversity and therefore should be considered in restoration tactics. (5)
The bionic leaf also has been transformed into a system that is able to make nitrogen fertiliser. When added to soil, a different engineered microbe can make fertiliser on demand. (6) Unlike most fertilisers used today in the agricultural industry, this one would not be synthesized from polluting resources. (7) Agricultural frontiers, or the outer regions of modern human settlements, are concentrated in diverse tropical habitats that are home to the largest number of species that are exposed to hazardous land management practices like pesticide use. (8) Because of their high biodiversity, these areas contain more sensitive, vulnerable and endemic species, and are areas expected to undergo the highest rate of species losses. (8) A lack of resources and education on proper pesticide usage has led to sharp deviations from agronomical recommendations with the overutilization of hazardous compounds. (8) Bringing the bionic leaf to these regions would mean cleaner fertiliser and the resources and education for proper pesticide usage. This would help mitigate the damage from improper use of hazardous pesticides as well as protect the biodiversity that was harmed by ingesting them.
Ecological restoration in a changing world calls for new tools and interdisciplinary approaches. When the field of conservation biology was officially established in 1985, the problems of global climate change were just beginning to be understood, as well as the effects on animal and plant species. Ecological restoration is an important section of the conservation biology field but the research and management strategies used going into the future should focus on having a more interdisciplinary approach. The bionic leaf is just one tool from collaborative thinking that can help restore biodiversity and habitats as well as clean up our atmosphere to reduce the need for major restoration projects in the future.
1. Peter Reuell. 2016. Bionic Leaf Turns Sunlight into Liquid Fuel. The Harvard Gazette. Accessed April 2018. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/06/bionic-leaf-turns-sunlight-into-liquid-fuel/
2. C. Liu, B.C. Colón, M. Ziesack, P.A. Silver, D.G. Nocera. Water Splitting-Biosynthetic System with CO2 Reduction Efficiencies Exceeding Photosynthesis. Science. Vol. 352. Issue 6290. 1210-1213. (2016). DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf5039
3. W.J. Sutherland, P. Barnard, S. Broad, M. Clout, B. Connor, I. M. Côté, L. V. Dicks, H. Doran, A. C. Entwistle, E. Fleishman, M. Fox, K. J. Gaston, D. W. Gibbons, Z. Jiang, B. Keim, F. A. Lickorish, P. Markillie, K. A. Monk, J. W. Pearce-Higgins, L. S. Peck, J. Pretty, M. D. Spalding, F. H. Tonneijck, B. C. Wintle, N. Ockendon, A 2017 Horizon Scan of Emerging Issues for Global Conservation and Biological Diversity, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Vol. 32, Issue 1, Pages 31-40. (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.11.005.
4. United Nations. 2016. The World’s Cities in 2016. Available from http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/urbanization/the_worlds_cities_in_2016_data_booklet.pdf. (Accessed April 27, 2018)
5. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change and Biodiversity. Technical Paper V. 2002. http://ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/climate-changes-biodiversity-en.pdf. (Accessed April 27, 2018)
6. Veronika Meduna. 2017. Bionic Leaf Might Power Earth. Stuff, New Zealand. https://www.stuff.co.nz/science/96110864/bionic-leaf-might-power-earth. (Accessed April 18, 2018).
7. David Biello. Bionic Leaf Makes Fuel From Sunlight, Water and Air. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bionic-leaf-makes-fuel-from-sunlight-water-and-air1/ (Accessed April 26, 2018).
8. L. Schiesari, A. Waichman, T. Brock, C. Adams, B. Grillitsch. Pesticide Use and Biodiversity Conservation in the Amazonian Agricultural Frontier. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. Vol. 368. (2013). DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2012.0378.
Cultural Ecosystem Services and Restoration: Reconnecting communities and people with nature
By Andrea Hirschberg
As people realise how degraded the environment has become, more are turning to local ecological restoration projects to help ‘do their bit’. Greater Wellington alone has over 30 local community based restoration groups listed on its web page (GWRC, 2016), with likely many more unlisted. For many restoration groups the aim is to restore the physical environment or return a particular species to the area. However, for other groups the cultural aspect (such as community connections and education) of restoration is the main aim of the project (Fernandez-Gimenez et al., 2008).
Cultural Ecosystem Services
Saeukhan and Whyte (2005) describe cultural ecosystem services (CES) as “nonmaterial benefits people obtain form ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation and aesthetic experiences”. While CES are often highly regarded by many who are participating in restoration projects (Brancalion et al., 2014). They are however, often not covered in a lot of ecosystem services research (Chan et al., 2012 b) and there is currently poor integration of CES into management plans (Milcu et al., 2013, Plieninger et al., 2012 & Chan et al., 2012 a). The aim of this essay is to look at how restoration and cultural ecosystem services can foster community connections and connections between the people and the land
As Milcu et al. (2013) found, with the exception of recreational, aesthetic, heritage and educational services, there is very little inclusion of cultural ES into management plans. Meaning that values such as spiritual value, cultural identity and history and the knowledge system (Tilliger et al. 2015) in relation to the ecosystem are often left out of management plans. This means that many management plans lack the full range of success indicators available to them. A broader range of social-science tools need to be used when putting together a management plan to include cultural values rather than just economic values (Chan, et al. 2012 b & Tilliger et al. 2015). Tilliger et al. (2015) believe that the lack of inclusion and study of CES is due to CES being less tangible than other ES and often including non-use values making CES harder to estimate and quantify.
Interconnections of People and Nature
Community-based natural resource management can play a significant role in ecological restoration projects. This is done by providing civic engagement through resource and knowledge pooling, the growth of trust between stakeholders and connection with other community groups (Hibbard et al. 2006). The strengthening of relationships between community members was found to be an important factor for members of restoration groups by Kittinger et al. (2013) and Fernandez-Gimenez et al. (2008). One member of Kittinger et al. (2013) study states “we are not just restoring an ecosystem but a community”. In their study looking at collaborative, community-based forestry organisations Fernandez-Gimenez et al. (2008) found that this community building aspect of the restoration project was the most important aspect for some members of the restoration group. The restoration project provided a space for those who were interested in the same place to learn together and share knowledge about that place. Community based restoration projects allow a diverse range of people to come together for a common purpose and create a plan which relevant to them.
Fernandez-Gimenez et al. (2008) also found that restoration projects helped to reconnect people with the land and engaged people in the natural resources around them. Participating in community restoration projects helps people become more aware of the interconnectedness of nature and how their action affects the environmental health (Egan et al. 2011 and Kittinger et al. 2013). This is especially true for restoration projects based on traditional ecological knowledge (TEK). Indigenous communities tend to have a more holistic world view than western science (WS) and many indigenous communities see themselves as a part of nature and on an equal level to everything else that makes up the ecosystem. For Maori this holistic world view has resulted in the idea of mauri (or life force of something). In terms of restoration, this means that if the mauri of the land is damaged then the mauri of the people is also damaged; if the land is sick the people are as well. Maori also believe in kaitiakitanga where everyone is a guardian of the land and everyone has responsibility to maintain the mauri of the land (Henwood & Henwood & Roberts et al. 1995). These two values are often what underpin iwi, hapu and whanau based restoration projects and are instrumental in reconnecting people with their land.
In their 2015 study Tilliger et al. focused on the connections between CES and the connections between CES and the land. They found that as cultural values and cultural connections to the land were lost degradation of the land occurred, which in turn resulted in a further loss of CES from the land, as shown in FIG. 1 below. I believe that in restoration projects the reverse can be true; as the land is restored CES will increase which will increase the restoration efforts.
|Figure 1. Shows the connections between CES and the land and how a reduction in one can result in a reduction of the other. From Tilliger et al. 2015|
While there is currently a lack of studies and restoration management plans which focus on CES (Chan et al. 2012 b & Tilliger et al. 2015) those studies which have looked at CES (including Brancalion et al. 2014, Kittinger et al. 2013 , Fernandez-Gimenez et al. 2008 and Milcu et al. 2013) found that CES are widely regarded by participants. In some cases the reconnection of communities was the main reason for many participants becoming involved (Kittinger et al. 2013 and Fernandez-Gimenez et al. 2008). The reconnection of mana whenua with the land and the reassertion of kaitiakitanga by the mana whenua is often the driving factor of Maori led restoration projects in New Zealand (Henwood & Henwood & Roberts et al. 1995)
Brancalion, P.H.S, I. Villarroel Cardozo, A. Camatta, J. Aronson & R.R. Rodrigues, 2014. Cultural Ecosystem Services and Popular Perceptions of the Benefits of an Ecological Restoration Project in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Restoration Ecology 22 (65-71)
Chan, K.M.A., Satterfield, T., & Goldstein, J., 2012(a). Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values Ecological Economics 74 (8-18)
Chan, K.M.A, A.D. Guerry, P. Balvanera, S. Klain, T. Satterfield, X. Basurto, A. Bostrom, R. Chuenpagdee, R. Gould, B.S. Halpern, N. Hannahs, J. Levine, B. Norton, M. Ruckelshaus, R. Russel, J. Tam & U. Woodside, 2012 (b). Where are Cultural and Social in Ecosystem Services? A Framework for Constructive Engagement. BioScience 62 (744-756)
Egan, D., Hjerpe, E.E., & Abrams, J. (eds). 2011. Human dimensions of ecological restoration: Intergrating science, nature and culture. Island Press, Washington DC. 410pp.
Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E., Ballard, H.L. & Sturtevant, V.E., 2008. Adaptive Management and Social Learning in Collaborative and Community-Based Monitoring: a Study of Five Community-Based Forestry Organizations in the western USA. Ecology and Society 13 (2)
Greater Wellington Regional Council 2016. www.gw.govt.nz/local-care-groups/ Accessed on 29th March 2016
Hibbard, M. & Lurie, S. 2006. Some community socio-economic benefits of watershed councils: A case study from Oregon, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 49(6), 891-908
Kittinger, J.N., Bambico, T.M., Minton, D., Miller, A., Mejia, M., Kalei, N., Wong, B., & Glazier, E.W. 2016. Restoring ecosystems, restoring community: socioeconomic and cultural dimensions of a community-based coral reef restoration project, Reg Environmantal Change, 16, 301-313
Milcu, A. Ioana, J. Hanspach, D. Abson, and J. Fischer, 2013. Cultural ecosystem services: a literature review and prospects for future research . Ecology and Society 18(3)
Plieninger, T., Dijks, S., Oteros-Rozas, E., & Bieling, C. 2013. Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land use Policy 33, 118-129
Sarukhan, J., & Whyte, A., (eds). 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis (Millennium Ecosystem Assesment). Island Press, Washington DC.
Shandas, V. & Messer, W.B, 2008. Fostering Green Communities Through Civic Engagement: Community-Based Environmental Stewardship in the Portland Area, Journal of the American Planning Association, 74:4, 408-418
Tilliger, B., Rodriguez-Labajos, B., Bustamante, J.V., & Settele, J., 2015. Disentangling values in the interrelations between cultural ecosystem services and landscape conservation-A case study of the Ifugao Rice Terraces in the Philippines. Land 4, 887-931
Going native – The role of native vegetation in managing wastewater
Public opinion is increasingly indicating that it is unacceptable to discharge wastewater directly into waterways. In determining how to manage this paradigm shift, several District Councils are examining the potential for irrigating wastewater to land. While this approach offers benefits, nutrients from wastewater are difficult to remove and can enter waterways via ground and surface flows. Given the pathogens and contaminants present in untreated wastewater there may also be a perception of risk to public health. Native vegetation potentially has a role to play. Native vegetation can provide a barrier to odours and aerial dispersal and in riparian areas act as a buffer to nutrients while improving connectivity with other habitats. Native planting can also engage the community in wastewater planning. Key challenges with this approach are change in nutrient removal as buffers age and ensuring effective community engagement. Carterton District Council’s (CDC) purchase of land to discharge wastewater from the Carterton Wastewater Treatment Plant (CWTP) is presented as a case study to consider these issues.
Casestudy: Carterton Wastewater Treatment Plant
Water quality monitoring has identified discharges from the CWTP as impacting the health of the Mangatarere Stream (GWRC, 1999). In 2012, CDC purchased Daleton Farm, a 66 hectare site adjacent to the CWTP as a first step towards no longer discharging wastewater into the Stream (CDC, 2013).
|Figure 1: Aerial photograph of Daleton Farm (not to scale) (Source: Googlemaps)|
|Figure 2:Piezometric surface and velocity vectors for the Wairarapa Valley (Source: GWRC, 2010).|
The Mangatarere runs through the north corner and along the north the farm. A residential area is to the north-east and rural properties are dotted around the perimeter. An ephemeral stream drains the area and land between here and the stream is poorly drained (see Figure 1). The existing land treatment system includes sixteen wetland plots. Excess water that could be irrigated to land is discharged into the stream during high rainfall (Clark, 2010). Groundwater flow at the site is in a south-west direction (Figure 2).
Wastewater irrigation and risk
As NZWWA (2003) notes, irrigating wastewater to land requires management of environmental, social and economic matters.
Nutrients are difficult to remove from wastewater and irrigation can accumulate in waterways, impacting organisms through toxicity and triggering excessive growth of oxygen depleting plants (PCE, 2012). Sub-surface flow can transport soluble nutrients rapidly, sometimes even directly into streams. Surface runoff can transport both particulate and soluble nutrients (Tanner et al, 2005). Nutrients are a key issue for irrigating to land at the CWTP. There is significant interaction between surface and groundwater in the area (GWRC, 2009).
Pathogens and contaminants are usually removed prior to irrigation and odour generation and aerial dispersal can be effectively managed by application design and screening (Magesan and Wang, 2003). Nonetheless, convincing the public that these processes are appropriate can be difficult. There is usually goodwill if the community is well informed but public support can be challenging when bureaucratic structures are perceived as untrustworthy (Mermet et al, 2007).
CDC’s vision for wastewater treatment, highlights the constraints surrounding rate increases and that CDC will partner with farmers rather than purchase the remaining 150 Hectares needed to manage all municipal wastewater. Opportunities to offset water and fertiliser costs of agriculture and forestry and allow an economic return are highly regarded and are also options that can assist nutrient removal (Personal communication: Greg Boyle, 26/3/2014). Crop production and forestry instead of grazing will avoid urine inputs and stock removal increases infiltration as trampling compacts soils (Parkyn et al, 2004). Taupo District Council grows and sells a cut and carry haylage crop (Treeweek et al, 2010). Rotorua irrigates commercial stands of Pinus radiata (Magesan and Wang, 2003).
What role can native vegetation play?
While commercial opportunities will be a priority focus at CWTP, a role for native vegetation should still be considered. Vegetation stands along borders will shield neighbouring properties (USDA, 2007) and in riparian areas will improve stream health. Quinn et al (1997) compared stream health in riparian areas of pasture, pine plantation and native forest. Nutrient levels were more favourable in native forest. Connectivity between native vegetation patches is also improved. Ultimately, native planting activities can attract community participation in wastewater planning.
Nutrient removal differs according to hydrology, soils and vegetation. Surface pollutant transport of soluble nutrients is reduced by increased infiltration caused by root channels and soil structure changes. Particulate nutrients are filtered and slowed by dense vegetation. Soluble nutrients transported through sub-surface flows can be removed by vegetation uptake and denitrification. Denitrification, whereby nitrate is removed as N₂ gas, is common in wetlands with anoxic soils rich in organic matter. Cooper (1990) in Parkyn et al (2004) found nitrate loss was concentrated in wetland areas that occupied only 12% of the border of a stream. Planning at the CWTP will need to consider the ephemeral stream and the poorly drained soils to the west as well as the banks of the stream. As Gillian (1994) notes, these area receive runoff and have shallow groundwater seeps.
Stream health and connectivity
Effects of native vegetation on streams include increased shade and terrestrial food sources and reduced water and air temperature in areas where native fish lay eggs (Parkyn et al, 2004). Death and Collier (2010) emphasise restoration of segments is optimised in areas with significant catchment cover suggesting that connectivity between patches is important. As Akçakaya et al (2007) notes increased connectivity aids in the dispersal of biodiversity but needs to be managed as pest species can also benefit. The local streamcare group in Carterton, the Mangatarere Restoration Society (MRS), is supported by both the District and Regional Councils and has released an action plan based on community consultation. The action plan outlines a strategy to links restored areas to the Tararua Forest Park. Opportunity exists for the CDC to work at the CWTP to support this vision, though a pest management strategy will be needed to ensure biodiversity values at the Tararua Forest Park are protected.
Public participation in ecological restoration is common place in New Zealand (Galbraith, 2013). Native planting offers an opportunity to engage the public on wastewater options. In Carterton, for example, wastewater consultation and native planting could be held at the same time. Community consultation has already indicated native planting as an activity the community wants to participate in and the MRS can harness this interest (personal communication: Jill Greathead, 15/6/2012). As Mermet et al (2008) notes replacing management by government with management by community can assist in resolving contentious issues and could assure the community on public health and odour generation issues. Galbraith (2013) notes a role for community participation in changing attitudes, suggesting that environmental education on household and farming inputs to wastewater could also be a useful focus of planting days.
|Plate 1: MRS members participating in native planting at a local landowners property. Photograph by A.J. Hunter|
Challenges with this approach
In advocating for a role for native vegetation, a number of challenges should be considered. The effectiveness of nutrient removal of native vegetation changes as buffers age. Engaging with communities is challenging.
Nutrient response as buffers age
Howard-Williams and Pickmere (1994) studied a native riparian vegetation stretch for 17 years and found that after twelve years nutrient response decreased but wildlife capacity increased. Pores of soils can become blocked and shading limits the role of aquatic and smaller terrestrial plants in nutrient removal. Parkyn et al (2003) suggest maintenance to allow light entry and grass filter strips to remove more particulate nutrients before they enters riparian areas. Howard-Williams and Pickmere (1994) takes a longer view advocating wildlife values to be embraced and that riparian retirement should be accompanied by improved landuse. Implementing such an approach in Carterton, for example, will require working with downstream landusers to improve their impacts. To some extent this is occurring through Greater Wellington Regional Council’s work with local farmers implementing Land and Environment Plans (personal communication: Richard Parkes, 6/2/2014).
Silvertown et al (2007) notes recruiting broad volunteer participation in conservation as challenging. Attitudes towards environmental issues vary and many organisations report age and gender bias in the small portions of the population they manage to engage. While the participation of MRS members will be a useful addition to wastewater consultation, CDC will need to ensure this occurs as part of a broader strategy or the approach may be perceived as being hijacked to appease a conservation orientated elite. As Mermet et al (2007) emphasise governance and coordination approaches to conservation, while useful in bringing together stakeholders can also be seen as reinforcing defacto power balances and be vulnerable to political manipulation.
Native vegetation has a role to play in managing the environmental, social and economic issues involved with irrigating wastewater to land. Native riparian vegetation can assist in removing nutrients while improving stream health and connectivity. Perhaps more importantly, native vegetation planting can also act as a focal point for attracting community participation in wastewater planning. CDC’s plan to irrigate wastewater to land is an opportunity to implement such an approach. Wastewater management will benefit from native vegetation stands along border areas between neighbouring properties, in riparian areas and along the ephemeral stream. Planting activities will need maintenance as buffers age and should be part of a wider strategy to work with householders and neighbouring landowners in reducing nutrient inputs to the stream. Involving the public in native planting activities as part of the wastewater consultation process, provides an opportunity to discuss and resolve contentious planning issues providing it is part of a package of activities involving the wider community.
Akçakaya, H.R., Mills, G. and Doncaster, C.P (2007) The role of metapopulations in conservation. In Macdonald, D. W. and Service, K. (eds), Key topics in conservation biology, Chichester, Blackwell Publishing, pp. 64-84.
Boyer, S (2011, December) Carterton council to pay $20k for leak, Wairarapa Times Age, Retrieved from: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/wairarapatimesage/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503414&objectid=11048605
Clark, S (2010) Carterton District Council Carterton sewage treatment plant discharge to land and water assessment of effects on the environment. Retrieved from
Carterton District Council (CDC) (2013) 2013 Pre-election Report. Retrieved from: http://www.cdc.govt.nz/sites/default/files/Pre-election%20Report%202013.pdf.
Couper, S., Ewart, J., Anderson, T. and Wallace, I. (2009) Natural Nutrient Removal, Taupo District Land Disposal Scheme. Retrieved from: http://www.awtwater.com/docs/weftec/natural_nutrient_removal_weftec.pdf
Death, R. G. and Collier, K. J. (2010) Measuring stream macroinvertebrate responses to gradients of vegetation cover: when is enough enough? Freshwater Biology,55, 1447–1464.
EQONZ (2012) Wairarapa Water Use Project – Discussion of the potential for incorporation of treated municipal wastewater. Retrieved from:
Galbraith, M. (2013) Public and ecology – the role of volunteers on Tiritiri Island. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 37 (3) 266 – 271.
Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) (2010) Mangatarere Stream catchment water quality investigation. Retrieved from:
Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) (2010) Wairarapa Valley groundwater resource investigation Middle Valley catchment hydrogeology and modelling. Retrieved from: http://www.gw.govt.nz/assets/council-publications/Wairarapa%20Valley%20Groundwater%20Resource%20Investigation%20Middle%20Valley%20Catchment%20Report%20updated.pdf.
Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) (2012) Regional Freshwater Plan for the Wellington Region. Retrieved from: http://www.gw.govt.nz/assets/Plans–Publications/Regional-Freshwater-Plan/Regional-Freshwater-Plan-incorporating-plan-changes-1234-and-5-updated-April-2012.pdf.
Guggenmos, M. R., Jackson, B. M. and Daughney, C. J. (2011) Investigation of groundwater-surface water interaction using hydrochemical sampling with high temporal resolution, Mangatarere catchment, New Zealand. Hydrology and earth system science, 8, 10225 – 10273.
Howard-Williams, C (1991) Dynamic process in New Zealand Land-Water Ecotones. New Zealand Journal of Ecology, 15 (1), 87 – 98.
Howard-Williams, C and Pickmere, S (1994) Long-term vegetation and water quality changes associated with the restoration of a pasture stream. In Colliers, K. J. (Ed) Restoration of Aquatic Habitats. Selected papers from the second day of the New Zealand Limnological Society 1993 Annual Conference (pp. 93 – 109), New Zealand, Department of Conservation.
Howard-Williams, C and Pickmere, S (1999) Nutrient and vegetation changes in a retired pasture stream. Recent monitoring in the context of a long-term dataset. Retrieved from: http://conservation.govt.nz/Documents/science-and-technical/Sfc114.pdf.
Laurenson, S., Bolan, N., Horne, D., Vogeler, I. and Lowe, H. (2007) The sustainable management of sewage wastewater irrigation to pasture – New Zealand Land Treatment Collective: Proceedings for the 2007 Annual Conference. Retrieved from: http://www.lei.co.nz/images/custom/2007_sewage_wastewater_irrigation.pdf.
Magesan, G. N. and Wang, H. (2003) Application of municipal and industrial residuals in New Zealand forests: and overview. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 41, 557 – 567.
Mermet, L., Homewood, K., Dobson, A. and Billé, R. (2008) Five paradigms of collective action underlying the human dimension of conservation. In Macdonald, D. W. and Service, K. (eds), Key topics in conservation biology, Chichester, Blackwell Publishing, pp. 42-58.
New Zealand Water and Waste Association (NZWWA) (2003) Guidelines for the safe application of biosolids to land in New Zealand. Retrieved from:
Parkyn, S. M., Davies-Colley, R. J., Halliday, J. N., Costley, K. J. and Croker, G. F. (2003) Planted Riparian Buffer Zones in New Zealand: Do They Live Up to Expectations? Restoration Ecology, 11, 4, 436–447.
Parkyn, S (2004) Review of riparian buffer zone effectiveness, MAF Technical Paper,No: 2004/05.
Parliamentary Commission for the Environment (2013) Water quality in New Zealand: Land use and nutrient pollution, Wellington, Parliamentary Commission for the Environment.
Quinn, J.M., Bryce Cooper, A., Davies‐Colley, R. J., Rutherford, J.C., and Williamson, R.B. (1997) Land use effects on habitat, water quality, periphyton, and benthic invertebrates in Waikato, New Zealand, hill‐country streams. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 31 (5) 579-597.
Schipper, L. A. and McGill, A (2008) Nitrogen transformation in a denitrification layer irrigated with dairy factory effluent. Water Research, 42, 2457 – 2464.
Silvertown, J. Buesching, C.D., Jacobson, S.K. and Rebelo, T. (2007) Citizen science and nature conservation. In Macdonald, D. W. and Service, K. (eds), Key topics in conservation biology, Chichester, Blackwell Publishing, pp. 127-141.
Tanner, C. C., Nguyen, M. L. and Sukias, J. P. S. (2005) Nutrient removal by a constructed wetland treating subsurface drainage from grazed dairy pasture. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 105, 145 – 162.
Treweek, G., Balks, M. R. and Schipper, L. A. (2010) Nitrogen leaching from effluent irrigated pasture, on a vitrand (pumice soil), Taupo, New Zealand – initial results, 2010 19th World Congress of Soil Science, Soil Solutions for a Changing World, Brisbane, Australia, Published on DVD.
Stuart McKay has over 15 years experience working for governments in Australia, the UK and New Zealand across health, agriculture, housing and environment portfolios. His experiences range from representing Australia at Commission on Sustainable Development meetings at the UN headquarters in New York to providing project management expertise to health, housing and social care projects in the UK. With the New Zealand government at the Ministry for Primary Industries Stuart was responsible for the 2011 independent audit of the Dairying and Clean Streams Accord, the Natural Resource Sector Briefing for Incoming Ministers and part of the cross portfolio team that implemented the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management. Stuart was also pivotal in securing funding for the establishment of the Mangatarere Restoration Society a community restoration group in the Wairarapa. Stuart is sustainable development consultant at Sustainable Communities and is currently completing a post graduate certificate in ecological restoration at Victoria University, Wellington to supplement and specialise his expertise. He currently holds a Bachelor of Science in Environmental Science and Social Ecology with Honours in Sustainable Development from Murdoch University in Perth, Western Australia.