Introduction Remote and island communities pose challenges for the practice of impact assessment. These challenges arise from the characteristics of isolated places. This article focuses on inhabited islands to illustrate applications of impact assessment in island communities, while acknowledging there are also remote mainland communities that have many of the characteristics found on inhabited islands.
The inhabited offshore islands of Aotearoa New Zealand present unique possibilities but also difficulties with scaling up ecological restoration programmes involving pest removal. Planned changes require strategic social and ecological impact assessment. To illustrate, we use the example of programmes to eradicate mammalian predators in three inhabited islands of Aotearoa New Zealand: Aotea Great Barrier, Rakiura Stewart Island and Rēkohu Chatham Islands [1].
These three island groups provide lessons on planning for sustainable and resilient outcomes of ecological programmes, which we have found are enhanced through appropriate methods of community engagement and the co-production of social and ecological knowledge (see also Taylor and Mackay, 2024, in this issue). Lessons from these islands help to extend our social-ecological framework for practicing impact assessment with people and communities of inhabited islands and remote places.
Islands and remote communities Inhabited offshore islands of Aotearoa New Zealand present problems for the practice of impact assessment. They represent complex social-ecological systems that require application of social impact assessment (SIA) alongside strong community participation to develop programmes such as the eradication of mammalian predators (Russell et al., 2017). This has also proven to be the case for Australia’s Lord Howe Island, population around 350, where over 20 years of planning to eradicate introduced rodents has seen numerous technical, economic and other assessments including a human health assessment (Walsh, et al., 2019, p526).
The subject islands have long-standing populations: Aotea Great Barrier (est. population 1040 in 2023), Rakiura Stewart Island (est. 2023 population 450) and Rēkohu Chatham Islands (est. 2023 population 730). Their associated communities are generally rural in character compared to more urbanised and much less isolated islands such as Waiheke in the Hauraki Gulf, Auckland, the country’s largest island population. Socially and ecologically, they have similarities to remote mainland areas, such as Fiordland in Southland, South Westland, and northern areas of the West Coast and Golden Bay in the South Island, and Northland and East Cape in the North Island.
The inhabited islands are distinct from the major conservation islands such as Kapiti, where the human-ecological interface is largely around people visiting for relatively short periods. An early social impact assessment there, for example, focused on visitor experiences and management (Sutton, 1992), or Little Barrier, where the interface is narrowed to conservation managers and researchers.
The natural environments of the three subject island groups are of considerable conservation interest, with habitats and ecosystems that are physically and ecologically interconnected with their coastal marine environment. Aotea and Rakiura are relatively unmodified in comparison to mainland New Zealand with large areas of designated conservation land, reserves or national park. Chatham and nearby Pitt island (Rēkohu) are widely modified but still retain significant conservation values. All three major islands have smaller offshore islands with varying human interaction and ecological value. There are important ecological values in the islets and rock stacks used as island sanctuaries and restoration sites.
Land tenure varies across the three islands with areas of privately owned land, Māori land and conservation land. Much of Rakiura is administered by DOC, with 80% of the island forming the Rakiura National Park, 6% is in a Māori lands trust and just 2% is private land (Russell et al., 2017). Rēkohu, on the other hand, is largely private land with smaller areas of conservation and iwi land. The Hāpūpū/J.M. Barker Historic Reserve and the islets of Rangatira and Mangere are of national significance. Other important natural areas are held by private owners [2].
The islands have natural-resource, multifunctional, economies based around a mix of commercial fishing, farming, recreational hunting and fishing, conservation work, hospitality and tourism. The economic mix varies across the islands. The Rēkohu economy is based on fishing and extensive farming with some limited tourist activity and a legacy of boom and bust in these key sectors (Barker, 1984). On Rakiura fishing has dominated the economy for many years, alongside outdoor recreation with tramping and hunting. A few attempts at farming were unsuccessful in this harsh environment. Visitor numbers and types have increased there over time, with noticeable growth since the designation of the Rakiura National Park (Russell, et al., 2017). Similarly, Aotea has limited areas of farming and a heavy reliance on the visitor sector and conservation work.
The populations on these islands have varied considerably historically being strongly related to their changing economic activity. More recently they have been stable between 2006 and 2013 for Rakiura 402 then 408 usually resident, and Rēkohu 609 and 663, while Aotea has shown more growth, from 867 to 930. However, noting the 2023 census populations, all now exhibit growth over 2018-2023 with strong amenity values attracting new residents and growing visitor sectors.
The three islands all have people employed in community services such as marae, a small supermarket, early childhood and primary education, primary health and social work, electricity and telecommunications, banking, freight or postal services [3]. The viability of these services is heavily influenced by the level of business activity, employment and population on the island. Residents, businesses and services face the additional fixed costs of infrastructure, and freight charges on most items. Therefore, transport, telecommunications, and the high costs of housing and living are key issues for these populations, affecting their resilience and ability to adapt to change.
The level of isolation is a particular issue for Rēkohu, where air services have remained relatively stable over time but with local concerns about costs, whereas shipping services are a perennial problem given the need for a multi-purpose vessel that can carry a range of freight as well as livestock exported to the mainland. In comparison, Rakiura and Aotea have relatively stable and regular (daily) sea ferries and air services. The reliance on, and vulnerabilities with, sea and air transport on the islands has some parallels with the vulnerabilities of road transport for mainland remote communities.
In addition to physical and social distances and limited social connection, the islands, consistent with mainland remote communities, face issues around the delivery of a full range of services. The persistent loss of young and working-age people for education and work, and high seasonal population turnover, undermine social capital. Access to whanau and family connection and support during times of family stress add to the challenges facing the services that work with remote families.
People on these islands therefore look to build social capital and are highly motivated and engaged around conservation, economic and social development. Each island has active volunteers, fundraisers and other social events all helping to build social capital. When developing a work programme or development project, however, there is often limited local capacity, creating a dependence on outside knowledge and technical skills at the expense of local knowledge and mātauranga.
Planning example: The management of invasive species The islands of Aotearoa New Zealand were engines of adaptation and speciation, but their isolation left ecosystems vulnerable to novel stresses from invasive mammalian predators, including cats (Felis catus), rats (Rattus spp.), possums (Trichosurus vulpecula) and hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus). Today there are complex human-ecological problems around the eradication of these invasive species to protect the many endemic species endangered by them. So far, the focus here and internationally has been on the eradication of mammalian predators from uninhabited islands, creating sanctuaries for endangered species and ecological restoration well away from human populations.
However from 2016, the national mission of Predator Free 2050 has led to an understanding that invasive species management will need to be scaled up considerably from small uninhabited islands and a few, small, intensely managed areas of the mainland. This mission is highly technical but also a community-based effort across the motu, with over 1000 groups and iwi registered for predator control in their communities. The larger inhabited islands of Aotea, Rakiura and Rēkohu are a focus, as are remote mainland “islands” such as parts of Fiordland (Hollyford Valley) and South Westland. Together these efforts to eradicate mammalian predators at larger scales present a novel challenge, requiring a strategic approach to test ecological and social feasibility and plan an appropriate approach (Russell and Taylor, 2018).
Eradication of introduced species on inhabited islands is more than merely undertaking pest control and management. It requires a strategic process to obtain the social licence to operate and build community support over time around issues like the use of toxins or the maintenance of hunting (Russell et al., 2017). The links between natural values, conservation and tourism are important, with visitor activity arising from interests in natural environments, species recovery and biodiversity restoration.
Therefore, there is an increasing understanding amongst ecologist and conservation mangers that social impact assessment is an important tool for planning and implementing an eradication programme (Russell, et al., 2018). Social Impact Assessment (SIA) is especially valuable for the co-production of knowledge incorporating local and iwi knowledge with technical expertise (Taylor and Mackay, 2022, 2024).
A detailed social impact assessment of Rakiura, for example, provided insights into the issues around a predator-management project for biodiversity enhancement. Rakiura can be characterised (Dillon, 2005) as a community that exhibits traditional rural and island characteristics of self-reliance and resilience, with an emphasis on individual action alongside an evident willingness to pitch in and work collectively to resolve issues and find local solutions.
The assessment was a strategic SIA, focused on what was needed to advance a suggested programme of conservation work rather than a single project. Historically, eradications were primarily undertaken as single projects but Predator Free Rakiura is better understood as a programme of conservation work that is likely to include several eradication projects.
The SIA process on Rakiura involved well-practiced steps of scoping, description of the social baseline, and assessment of strategic alternatives to achieve biodiversity goals along with social-economic benefits. The alternatives considered were around pest control working towards eradications, and ways for the community to be involved in planning, implementation and ongoing management such as biosecurity. An essential element of this SIA was the integrated approach between social and ecological sciences, conservation managers and local knowledge.
Key characteristics of islands and remote places To enhance this integration, a framework was developed by Taylor, et al. (2020) to distinguish typical social and ecological characteristics of inhabited islands. This framework is summarised and adapted here to provide a generic list: key characteristics of inhabited islands and other remote places in Aotearoa New Zealand to use as a check list when planning and conducting an impact assessment including any baseline research and the approach to community engagement.
Isolation Isolation means species and habitats that are vulnerable to external events such as the arrival of an invasive plant, predator or disease. Societally, isolation has direct effects on options for livelihoods, the extent of social networks and available capitals. Often management and governance are separated from the island or remote community, encouraging populations to innovate and seek local solutions to problems. Economic linkages are also affected by isolation, such as distance from markets. To some extent, digital technologies and air transport, including helicopters, have overcome aspects of isolation.
Boundedness The physical ocean boundary separates island biota and society from the mainland. The ocean provides a barrier to potential invasive species and defines islands as a place, as do rivers and mountains limiting road connections in remote mainland places such as mountain valleys. Boundedness provides a distinct sense of place, of belonging and a sense of insider/outsider. Remote populations understand the limits that require them to define leadership and solve local problem using a combination of local and extra-local resources.
Scale The scale of offshore islands and remote places affects ecosystems, people and places. There are tight linkages between terrestrial and marine environments: ki uta ki tai. Scale limits the ability to plan and manage resources and development such as restoration and regeneration actions. Tight social relationships and networks provide cohesion but often create conflicts between competing interests. Small scale limits the options for livelihoods, markets, services and social connection.
Dependence Many dependencies exist in island systems. Within island ecological networks there are dependencies between land and sea for breeding and feeding of sea birds. Healthy ecological services (marine and terrestrial) support commercial fishing, outdoor recreation (hunting, fishing, tramping), and tourism businesses. Everyone is dependent on transport services. Schools and health care are heavily dependent on wellbeing of individuals and whānau, and the size of the population. Communities often depend on external funding and expertise.
Migration Islands are species depauperate so they are affected by migration and novel species introductions by humans, which can enrich but also create threats to native ecosystems. Socially, newcomers bring new skills and financial and social capital, although new people and ideas can also be threatening. However, immigration and visitor numbers are limited by transport capacity and available housing and infrastructure. Commonly, islands and remote areas are affected when people, skills, experience or capital leave.
Complexity In the absence of biological constraints, introduced plants and animals, new human land uses and tourism visitors can cause complex new biological relationships and test carrying capacities. External administrative systems, regulations and financial systems create layers of relative complexity around ecology, economy and communities. People and cultures hold complex local knowledge, often in oral form. Individuals become used to taking on multiple jobs and often fill multiple roles within a community.
Resilience Island ecologies, economies and social wellbeing are vulnerable to stressors such as, biosecurity incursions, natural hazards and climate events. Stressors include transport failures, the loss of a source of employment, loss of cultural values or even loss of a key person from the community. Reduced resilience means a reduced ability to adapt to change. Initiatives that support and work with local capacity and knowledge have positive potential outcomes.
Conclusions SIA is essential in the design of major projects and programmes on inhabited islands and for remote places. This paper provides strong support for the use of strategic SIA in increasingly ambitious projects and programmes based in islands and remote communities, such as introduced mammalian predator eradications. Social and ecological assessments require capable, knowledgeable and experienced teams to work in an integrated way incorporating local knowledge, including mātauranga, and experience. A social-ecological framework can assist with shaping these assessments conceptually. In islands and remote places assessments also require sufficient time and financial resources, plus a commitment to processes for the co-production of knowledge, and to collaborative approaches and partnerships for planning and implementing a project.
Footnotes [1] Each of these islands has several islets and rock stacks. In this paper we refer to these island groups in singular and use their indigenous names [2] https://www.doc.govt.nz/nature/habitats/offshore-islands/chatham-islands/ [3] See Social Service Providers Aotearoa (2019).
References
Barker, P (1984). Peat mining on the Chatham Islands: proposals, context and social concerns. Studies in Rural Change, 11, Department of Geography, University of Canterbury.
Dillon, D. (2005). Islands, islandness and nursing: advanced nursing practice in rural remote and small island areas. A dissertation submitted to Otago Polytechnic, Dunedin, in partial fulfilment of the degree of Master of Nursing.
Russell, K.J., Taylor, C.N., Balanovic, J.X., Aley, J.P., Harbow, M.A. & Russell, J.C. (2017). Predator Free Rakiura Social Impact Assessment. A report for the Department of Conservation. University of Auckland.
Russell, J. C., Taylor, C. N., & Aley, J. P. (2018). Social assessment of inhabited islands for wildlife management and eradication. Australasian journal of environmental management, 25(1), 24-42.
Russell, J.C., & Taylor, C.N. (2019). Strategic environmental assessment for invasive species management on inhabited islands. In: C.R. Veitch, M.N. Clout, A.R. Martin, J.C. Russell and C.J. West (eds.) (2019). Island invasives: scaling up to meet the challenge, pp. 692–697. Occasional Paper SSC no. 62. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
Taylor, C.N., & Mackay, M. (2022). Social Impact Assessment: Guidelines for Thriving Communities and Regions. Building Better Homes Towns and Cities, Wellington, New Zealand.
Taylor, C. N. & Mackay M. (2024). Application of Social Impact Assessment in planning a project: from concept to approvals. Chapter 12 in F. Vanclay and A. Esteves (Eds.), Handbook on Social Impact Assessment and Management, Edward Elgar.
Taylor, C.N., Russell, J.C. & Russell, K.J. (2020). A strategic social impact assessment for Predator‑Free Rakiura, New Zealand, with a human–ecological approach. Socio-Ecological Practice Research, 2:161–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-020-00049-0
Social Service Providers Aotearoa (2019). Social services in rural and remote areas. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=SOCIAL+SERVICES+IN+RURAL+AND+REMOTE+AREAS
Walsh A, Wilson, A, Bower, H, McClelland, P, & Pearson, J (2019). Winning the hearts and minds – proceeding to implementation of the Lord Howe Island rodent eradication project: a case study. In: Veitch CR, Clout MN, Martin AR, Russell JC, West CJ (eds.), Island invasives: scaling up to meet the challenge. Occasional Paper SSC no. 62. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, pp 522-530.