In line with the paradigmatic shift towards spatial ecology, it is generally accepted that the conservation value of a habitat remnant cannot be determined in isolation from its wider landscape. Sensitivity to the spatial context of forest patches should, therefore, characterise habitat management. Conversely, neoliberal planning disregards ecospatial configuration because it abandons resource decisionmaking to the spatially ad hoc outcomes of market processes. Analysis of bush-lot subdivision—the foremost protection mechanism for indigenous habitat on private land in the Auckland Region—demonstrates that the neoliberal agenda for planning contradicts fundamental tenets of conservation ecology. With its foundations in voluntarism and market mechanisms, bush-lot subdivision induces selection bias in the location of protected remnants. Strategic and interventionist approaches will be required to moderate the impact of habitat loss, fragmentation, and perforation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllmendingerPTewdwr-JonesM, 2000, “New Labour, new planning? The trajectory of planning in Blair's Britain”Urban Studies371379–1402
2.
ARC, 1995State of the Auckland Region ReportAuckland Regional Council, Private Bag 92–012, Auckland
3.
BeatleyT, 2000, “Preserving biodiversity”Journal of the American Planning Association665–21
4.
BeckU, 1997The Reinvention of Politics: Rethinking Modernity in the Global Social Order (Polity, Cambridge)
5.
BerkeP RCrawfordJDixonJEriksenN, 1999, “Do cooperative environmental planning mandates produce good plans? Empirical results from the New Zealand experience”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design26643–664
6.
BishopK, 1998, “Countryside conservation and the New Right”, in Urban planning and the British New Right Eds AllmendingerPThomasH (Routledge, London) pp 186–210
7.
BunnellF L, 1999, “What habitat is an island?”, in Forest Fragmentation: Wildlife and Management Implications Eds RocelleJ ALehmannL AWisniewskiJ (Koniklijke Brill, Leiden) pp 1–31
8.
ButtelF H, 2000, “Ecological modernization as social theory”Geoforum3157–65
9.
CocklinCDoormanP, 1994, “Ecosystem protection and management in New Zealand: A private land perspective”Applied Geography14264–281
10.
CollingeS K, 1996, “Ecological consequences of habitat fragmentation: Implications for landscape architecture and planning”Landscape and Urban Planning3659–77
11.
CollingeS K, 1998, “Spatial arrangement of habitat patches and corridors: Clues from ecological field experiments”Landscape and Urban Planning42157–168
12.
CollingeS K, 2001, “Spatial ecology and biological conservation”Biological Conservation1001–2
13.
CraigJAndersonSCloutMCreeseBMitchellNOgdenJRobertsMUssherG, 2000, “Conservation issues in New Zealand”Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics3161–78
14.
CuttingMCocklinC, 1992, “Planning for forest conservation in the Auckland Region, New Zealand”Landscape and Urban Planning2355–69
15.
DavisPCocklinC, 2000, “Who pays? Habitat protection on private land”, in Nature Conservation in Production Environments: Managing the Matrix Eds CraigJ LMitchellNSaundersD A (Surrey Beatty, Chipping Norton, NSW) pp 468–479
FahrigL, 2001, “How much habitat is enough?”Biological Conservation10065–74
18.
FeldmanT DJonasA E G, 2000, “Sage scrub revolution? Property rights, political fragmentation, and conservation planning in Southern California under the federal Endangered Species Act”Annals of the Association of American Geographers90256–292
19.
FisherD RFreudenburgW R, 2001, “Ecological modernization and its critics: Assessing the past and looking toward the future”Society and Natural Resources14701–709
20.
FormanR T TCollingeS K, 1997, “Nature conserved in changing landscapes with and without spatial planning”Landscape and Urban Planning37129–135
21.
FriesenL, 1998, “Impacts of urbanisation on plant and bird communities in forest ecosystems”The Forestry Chronicle74855–860
22.
FroudeV, 1997, “Implementing the biodiversity protection provisions in the Resource Management Act: A review of council progress to date”, Pacific Ecologic Resource Management Associates, Private Bag, Wellington
23.
FurusethOCocklinC, 1995, “An institutional framework for sustainable resource management: A New Zealand model”Natural Resources Journal35342–273
24.
GilfedderLKirkpatrickJ B, 1998, “Factors influencing the integrity of remnant bushland in subhumid Tasmania”Biological Conservation8489–99
25.
GleesonB, 1998, “The resurgence of spatial planning in Europe”Urban Policy and Research16219–225
26.
GleesonB JGrundyK J, 1997, “New Zealand's planning revolution five years on: A preliminary assessment”Journal of Environmental Planning and Management40293–313
27.
GleesonBLowN, 2000a, “‘Unfinished business’—neoliberal planning reform in Australia”Urban Policy and Research187–28
28.
GleesonBLowN, 2000b, “Revaluing planning: Rolling back neo-liberalism in Australia”Progress in Planning5383–164
29.
GrundyK J, 2000, “Purpose and principles: Interpreting section 5 of the Resource Management Act”, in Environmental Planning and Management in New Zealand Eds MemonP APerkinsH C (Dunmore Press, Palmerston North) pp 64–73
30.
GrundyK JGleesonB J, 1996, “Sustainable management and the market: The politics of planning reform in New Zealand”Land Use Policy13197–211
31.
GunderM, 1996, “Urban policy formulation under efficiency: The case of Auckland City Council's Britomart development”Urban Policy and Research14197–212
32.
CunninghamNYoungM D, 1997, “Toward optimal environmental policy: The case of biodiversity”Ecology Law Quarterly24243–298
33.
KirkR MMorganR KSingleM BFaheyB, 1999, “Applied physical geography in New Zealand”Progress in Physical Geography23525–540
34.
KneeboneJLindsayRoper JPrimeKChristensenM, 2000Bio-what? Addressing the Effects of Private Land Management on Indigenous Biodiversity (Ministry for the Environment, Wellington)
35.
LawtonJ H, 1999, “Are there general rules in ecology?”Oikos84177–192
36.
Local Government Amendment Act (No. 3), 1996 Statutes of New Zealand 1996, number 83
37.
LowN, 2002, “Ecosocialisation and environmental planning: A Polanyian approach”Environment and Planning A3443–60
38.
McDermottP, 1998, “Positioning planning in a market economy”Environment and Planning A30631–646
MatlackG R, 1997, “Landuse and forest habitat distribution in the hinterland of a large city”Journal of Biogeography24297–307
41.
MatterS FHanskiIGyllenbergM, 2002, “A test of the metapopulation model of the species-area relationship”Journal of Biogeography29977–983
42.
MeadowsM E, 2001, “Biogeography: Does theory meet practice?”Progress in Physical Geography25134–142
43.
MfE, 1991, “Resource management: Guidelines for district plans”, Ministry for the Environment, Wellington
44.
MillerC, 2002, “Conservation of riparian forest remnants, West Coast, New Zealand”Landscape Research27125–140
45.
MolA P J, 2000, “The environmental movement in an era of ecological modernisation”Geoforum3145–56
46.
MorganR K, 2000, “The practice of environmental impact assessment in New Zealand”, in Environmental Planning and Management in New Zealand Eds MemonP APerkinsH C (Dunmore Press, Palmerston North) pp 94–104
NortonD AMillerC J, 2000, “Some issues and options for the conservation of native biodiversity in rural New Zealand”Ecological Management and Restoration126–34
49.
OgdenJ, 1995, “The long-term conservation of forest diversity in New Zealand”Pacific Conservation Biology277–90
50.
PerkinsH CThornsD C, 2001, “A decade on: Reflections on the Resource Management Act 1991 and the practice of urban planning in New Zealand”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design28639–654
RyanR L, 2002, “Preserving rural character in New England: Local residents' perceptions of alternative residential development”Landscape and Urban Planning6119–35
54.
SelmanP, 2001, “Social capital, sustainability and environmental planning”Planning Theory and Practice213–30
55.
ShaferC L, 1999, “Natural park and reserve planning to protect biological diversity: Some basic elements”Landscape and Urban Planning44123–153
56.
SobelsJCurtisALockieS, 2001, “The role of landcare group networks in rural Australia: Exploring the contribution of social capital”Journal of Rural Studies17265–276
57.
ThornleyA, 1999, “Is Thatcherism dead? The impact of political ideology on British planning”Journal of Planning Education and Research19183–191
58.
TilmanDKareivaP, 1997Spatial Ecology: The Role of Space in Population Dynamics and Interspecific Interactions (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ)
59.
Town and Country Planning Act, 1977Statutes of New Zealand 1977, number 121
60.
WilsonP I W, 2001, “Deregulating endangered species protection”Society and Natural Resources14161–171
