An Approach to Researching Cultural Heritage … · An Approach to Researching Cultural Heritage Management on Conservation Islands in ... however, I discovered that there ... their

62 www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/gjaps

Graduate Journal of Asia-Pacific Studies 7:2 (2011), 62-77

An Approach to Researching Cultural Heritage Management on Conservation Islands in New Zealand David BADE University of Auckland [email protected]

Abstract This article examines the methodologies employed for my doctoral research into the issues and tensions of managing cultural heritage on conservation islands in New Zealand. I examined two case studies, Rangitoto Island and Motutapu Island (both in Auckland’s Hauraki Gulf, New Zealand), though the use of documentary analysis, in‐depth semi‐structured interviews and participant observation. The strengths and weaknesses of these methods are outlined and evaluated in this article with reference to my own personal experiences. It is hoped that this article may assist others using, or considering using, these methodological approaches.

A COMMON issue in the heritage management of “natural” contexts, and one which arises both in New Zealand and internationally, is that in situ cultural heritage may be ignored, silenced or even destroyed in order to make an area appear “natural” (independent and separate from human activity). This issue can be clearly seen on the islands of the Hauraki Gulf (Auckland, New Zealand) which are either reserved for their natural appearance or are undergoing ecological restoration to create a native forested environment for native species. There have been large‐scale efforts since the late 1980s to ecologically restore islands in the Hauraki Gulf. Cultural heritage managers, archaeologists and members of the public have been concerned that important cultural heritage not found on the mainland (such as extensive archaeological landscapes) may be destroyed forever as a result of these reserve designations and island ecological restorations.

My doctoral research examined this important heritage management issue for conservation islands in New Zealand. The main aims of the research were to ascertain the origins and influencing factors of the issue, examine specific examples of the issue, and determine the best practices to manage the issue. In this article the methodologies employed to achieve these aims will be outlined, critically evaluated, and reflected upon. The article will conclude with some points that could assist others in researching issues such as this, or deciding on methodological approaches for similar studies.

Description of methodology

As Figure 1 illustrates below, I used an overarching case study approach for this doctoral research. Two case studies, Rangitoto Island and Motutapu Island (both

63 Bade/ Researching cultural heritage management

in Auckland’s Hauraki Gulf, New Zealand) were examined though the use of documentary analysis, in‐depth semi‐structured interviews and participant observation. This methodology will now be discussed by highlighting why the methods were chosen, what the general strengths and weaknesses are of each method, and my experience with using the methods.

Case Study Approach

Rangitoto Island

Motutapu Island

Participant observation

In‐depth semi‐structured Interviews

Documentary analysis

Figure 1. Representation of the methodology for this thesis Case Study Approach

Instead of using a general overview approach to this research, I used a case study approach to allow for a more thorough examination of the issue in specific contexts. Because the issues of conserving cultural heritage in natural contexts were found both in New Zealand (e.g. Bade, 2008; 2010; Blundell, 2004; Bray, 2007; InSitu Heritage Ltd, 2010; Trotter & McCullock, 1999) and around the world (Australia: e.g. Ford, 2009; Griffiths, 1991; 1996; Lennon, 2000; Lennon et al., 1999. Canada: e.g. Miller, 1988. Canary Islands: e.g. Bianchi, 2002. South Africa: e.g. Deacon, 2004. USA: e.g. Avery, 2007; Chalana, 2005; Cronon, 2003; Feldman, 2004; Feldman & MacKreth, 2004; Keller & Keller, 2003; Reich, 2001; Somers, 2004; Watt, 2002; Wockner, 1997. Virgin Islands: e.g. Fortwangler, 2009; Olwig, 1980), the research was originally going to consist of three in‐depth New Zealand case studies and four other case studies (but not as in‐depth as the New Zealand ones) from two “old world” countries (England and Germany) and two “new world” countries (Australia and Canada). These case studies were to provide comparisons of the issue between different cultures and contexts with different human histories. Once research began on the


New Zealand case studies, however, I discovered that there was a vast array of rich information and data which could be gained from just studying examples from New Zealand islands. I therefore decided (with consultation with my supervisors) that it would be best to use two single New Zealand case studies for the research in order to keep the research focussed and not have too much data to analyse. Two case studies, instead of one, allowed for more of a variety of issues and perspectives to be analysed and provided opportunities for comparisons.

A general concern with a case study approach, and one which I encountered in this research, is the ability for case study findings and conclusions to be representative of the general phenomenon being studied (Yin, 2009). Case studies are essentially examples of a general phenomenon and not a complete study into the phenomenon itself. Likewise, there can be problems generalising from a limited number of case studies as there are always differences between examples and in different contexts. It is therefore imperative for research using case studies to ascertain how representative the chosen case studies are to the wider phenomenon being considered. The specific case studies for my research had to be carefully selected and soundly justified in order to provide a strong basis for the research investigation. The two case studies decided upon were Rangitoto Island and Motutapu Island, located in the inner Hauraki Gulf (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Map showing Rangitoto Island and Motutapu Island in the Hauraki Gulf (GBIDVI, n.d.). Great Barrier Information NZ is acknowledged for allowing the use of this map in this article.

Motutapu Island

Rangitoto Island


Although Rangitoto and Motutapu are neighbouring each other, they are physically vastly different. The substantial volcanic figure of Rangitoto dominates the skyline of Auckland harbour (Figure 3). Around 550 years ago Rangitoto emerged from the sea in a major volcanic eruption (Needham et al., 2011). It is Auckland’s youngest – and largest – volcano. The perception of the island as a place of nature has dominated Rangitoto’s history since European arrival and the natural values of the island have been held in high regard, particularly by botanists (Wilcox, 2007). During the 1920s and 1930s 140 baches (rudimentary holiday homes) were constructed on the island. However, during the 1970s and 80s most of these were demolished in an effort to make the island appear more natural. Thirty‐three of the original baches remain today.

Figure 3. Rangitoto Island as viewed from Auckland harbour.

Unlike Rangitoto, Motutapu has existed for millions of years (Figure 4). The

island is mostly comprised of ancient greywacke rock dating from between 140‐250 million years ago and was part of Gondwanaland (Cameron, Hayward & Murdoch, 2008). Motutapu’s history covers the full span of New Zealand settlement by Maori and Europeans (Dodd, 2007; 2008; Cameron, Hayward & Murdoch, 2008). The island was one of the first places settled by Polynesians in New Zealand and one of the first European purchases of land in the Auckland area. Motutapu also has one of the most complex and intact Maori archaeological landscapes in the Auckland region (Dodd, 2007). The island has a European farming history of over 170 years, and is currently the largest pastoral farm in the Auckland region (MRT, 2010). Motutapu also has an extensive World War II military landscape which once had the largest gun cannons in Auckland to protect the city, and the nation, from invasion. In addition to this significant cultural heritage, Motutapu (combined with Rangitoto) is considered to have huge ecological restoration potential as a large pest‐free island habitat for native species (Miller, Craig & Mitchell, 1994). Roughly 90% of the island is in grassland (80% is grazed by sheep and cattle), 6% is remnant bush, and about 4% has been planted by volunteers.


Figure 4. A view from the centre of Motutapu looking south‐west towards Rangitoto.

Based on anecdotal and documentary evidence, Rangitoto and Motutapu are considered as characteristic of the general issue of natural heritage being emphasized over cultural heritage on conservation islands. There were five main reasons for using these two island case studies for my doctoral research. Most significantly, the islands provided clear examples of the issue of managing cultural heritage on conservation islands in New Zealand. Although the two islands have the same general issue, they have different contexts. For example, Rangitoto is considered to be “natural” by being designated as a scenic reserve, while Motutapu is considered to be “becoming natural” through a partial ecological restoration of the island. Rangitoto is considered to be an island with high natural heritage values. From a distance, the welcoming greenness, uniformity and naturalness of the volcanic island not only disguise the rugged physical landscape of the island, but also its history of human utilisation and association. In contrast, Motutapu is geologically ancient, has fertile soil excellent for cultivation, is highly dominated by pasture grass, and has very little native vegetation. Motutapu therefore has not had, and does not have, the same sense of naturalness as Rangitoto does with its enormous Pohutakawa‐dominated forest and distinct volcanic landscape. As a result of these perceptions, both the islands have experienced, and are experiencing, tensions and conflict with the management of cultural heritage and natural heritage. For example, on Rangitoto there have been issues relating to the demolition or conservation of historical baches on the island, and on Motutapu there have been heated debates between ecologists and archaeologists over tree‐planting programmes on the significant island archaeological landscape.

The two islands also have both distinct similarities and distinct differences which provided fruitful comparisons and a broad range of issues. The two islands are both close to Auckland City (just 20‐30 minutes by ferry), have no permanent population (apart from farming staff on Motutapu), and are both managed by the Department of Conservation (DoC), the governmental agency charged with managing New Zealand’s natural and cultural heritage on the conservation estate. However, as alluded to earlier, the islands have differences in their history, the way they have been perceived, their landscape classification, and in their visitation. Rangitoto is a scenic reserve and is emphasized for its scenic beauty and natural


heritage values. The island is also one of Auckland’s most popular tourist attractions. Motutapu is a recreation reserve and a farm and is undergoing ecological restoration while also being acknowledged as having one of the best preserved archaeological landscapes in the Auckland region. There were consequently also distinct issues relating to the management of natural and cultural heritage on both islands.

In addition, the characteristics of islands (islandness) have meant that both physically and psychologically the islands have lent themselves well to be places of nature or for ecological restoration programmes which intend to restore the island landscapes back to their pre‐human forested state. “Islandness” includes characteristics of islands, such as separateness, boundedness, isolation, vulnerability and smallness (Baldacchino, 2006; McCall, 1994; Royle, 2001). The physical form of an island means that islands can be viewed as places which can be wholly controlled by humans, or equally, totally submitted to nature (Baldacchino, 2006). Furthermore, it is also logistically easier to remove mammalian and weed pests from a bounded and separate island landscape and maintain it in this way than on the mainland (Towns, Wright & Stephens, 2009). Islands are also generally not as impacted on by human developments as the mainland (and are therefore perceived as being more natural). In addition, the distinct journey to an island over water elicits and enhances a feeling of “getting away from it all” and “getting closer to nature”. This feeling is particularly intensified with “natural” islands close to urban areas where the distinction between the city (culture) and the “natural” island can be clearly seen (Bade, 2010). In these contexts the separation from the city is accentuated and the notion of nature as separate from culture is reinforced: as the mainland becomes “corrupted”, islands become “pure” (Treadwell, 2005). Consequently, the physical and psychological properties of islands have meant that they are perceived as places which are – or should be – natural. As a result of these characteristics, islands are often constructed as places of nature, and therefore places where culture (and cultural heritage) should not be, thus exacerbating the emphasis on natural heritage on the islands.

Rangitoto and Motutapu are also managed by DoC. There has been an apparent tendency in DoC to favour natural heritage over cultural heritage since its establishment in 1987. Because the department was established by combining agencies which had a focus on natural heritage conservation, the department has, to a large extent, continued this nature conservation ethos. In addition, DoC is the only governmental entity empowered to conserve threatened wildlife. Therefore, there seems to be an attitude within DoC that more effort should be put into the conservation of New Zealand’s wildlife as there is no other governmental entity with the same biodiversity responsibilities. In contrast DoC shares responsibility for cultural heritage management with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT). This dominance of natural heritage management over cultural heritage management within DoC intensified the heritage issue on the islands.

The case study islands are also managed by community trust organisations in partnership with DoC. On Rangitoto there is the Rangitoto Island Historic Conservation Trust (RIHCT), the Rangitoto Island Bach Community Association (RIBCA) and on Motutapu there is the Motutapu Restoration Trust (MRT). As a result, many members of the community are actively involved with the heritage


management of the islands. I therefore found it relatively easy to find people to interview with interests in the heritage management of the islands.

The main information sought from the case studies related to perspectives and insights into the way cultural heritage was managed on the islands; historical and current examples of issues between the management of natural and cultural heritage on the island; how these issues were managed; and the best practices to deal with these issues. In order to gain this information I employed three modes of investigation for each case study: documentary analysis, in‐depth semi‐structured interviews, and participant observation, as illustrated in Figure 1. These will now be described, evaluated, and reflected on in turn. Documentary Analysis

In order to gain knowledge and an understanding of the tensions between natural heritage and cultural heritage on the two island case studies, documentary analysis was used. Documentary analysis is the examination of current and historical documents (Mogalakwe, 2009). For each case study I searched through and analysed documents, such as published books, articles, pamphlets, archaeological reports, heritage reports, architecture reports, photographs, websites, DoC files, and newspaper articles. The DoC archives at the Auckland Conservancy were a fruitful source of documents. The Conservancy has files dating back to when DoC was first formed and also files from the old Department of Lands and Survey which DoC replaced in 1987. In order to find relevant documents, I printed out file catalogues and asked DoC members of staff to recommend files for me to investigate. I searched through and scanned files for relevant information by looking for key terms relating to tensions between natural heritage and cultural heritage management. I photocopied important documents for later reference.

I found newspaper articles by searching various online databases, such as the Local History Online website (Auckland Council, n.d), the University of Auckland library website, and the Takapuna Library website. I also found useful documents from the DoC website (DoC, 2011a; 2011b) and the websites of the island community trusts: Motutapu Restoration Trust (MRT, 2010), Rangitoto Island Historic Conservation Trust (RIHCT, 2010), and Rangitoto Island Bach Community Association (RIBCA, 2010). To analyse the issue in the general New Zealand context I also used the National Library website (n.d.) to search for relevant articles and documents from newspapers (Papers Past), the Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives (1858‐1999) and the Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New Zealand (1868‐1961).

This documentary analysis allowed a thorough understanding of the viewpoints and perceptions of those with vested interests in the managing of cultural heritage on the islands, including local councils, local Maori iwi, government organisations, heritage specialists and the general public. The examination of DoC’s archives allowed the analysis of how the various heritage issues relating to the management of natural heritage and cultural heritage on Rangitoto and Motutapu were dealt with and what was discussed by the Department. Although providing some good insights into the conflict and tensions between stakeholders over the heritage issue, I found that often the documents did not provide a full picture of the


reasons for the decisions that were made and the raw emotion associated with the issue. Interviews

Interviews with stakeholders helped to reveal who were, and what emotions were, “behind” the heritage issue and the documents analysed. Interviews are an excellent way to gain opinions, insights, points of view and experiences (Commonwealth of Learning, n.d.; Dunn, 2000). For this research, I used an in‐depth semi‐structured interview technique. A semi‐structured interview takes the form of a discussion with some predetermined open‐ended questions or themes to be addressed. It is a way of eliciting information from a person in an orderly and partially structured way (Longhurst, 2003). In contrast to a structured interview in which only predetermined questions are asked or an unstructured interview where the interviewee’s narrative determines the content of the interview, semi‐structured interviews allow some flexibility as to what questions are asked and how the discussion is led without the interviewer losing all control of the direction of the interview (Dunn, 2000). By engaging the interviewee in a dialogue with open‐ended questions a wide‐ranging and fluid conversation potentially occurs (Valentine, 2005).

I identified potential interviewees through prior knowledge of contacts, through investigating heritage organisations, through field work on the case studies, and through snowballing (recommendations from other interviewees). In the majority of cases, I made contact with potential interviewees through email and occasionally in person or via telephone. I gave the potential interviewees a participant information sheet in the form of an attachment as part of an email or physically at the interview. In the participant information sheet the research was introduced and described.

I conducted a total of 30 interviews with a variety of people from stakeholder groups pertaining to Rangitoto and Motutapu (Table 1). The aim of the interviews was to gain insights from those who had been, and are currently involved in, managing cultural heritage and natural heritage on the islands. The interviews were not to be representative, but to be an illustrative sample. As shown in Table 1, I interviewed past and present professional heritage (natural and cultural) managers. These people were chosen for their experience with the case studies, and in some instances, for their knowledge and experience of general heritage issues. I also conducted interviews with members of the island community trusts and the Ngai Tai iwi (tribe), who have historical connections with the islands. Table 2 shows that there were slightly more people interviewed who had an association with Rangitoto than Motutapu. A number of the interviewees had links with two organisations or groups, or with both islands. For example, many were former employees of DoC now working for a different organisation. For this reason the total on the two tables is more than 30. Once “saturation point” (whereby the same kinds of answers were being given at the interviews) was reached, no more interviews were sought.

I carried out the interviews in a location convenient for the interviewee. Normally this was at the workplace or home of the interviewee or at a cafe nearby to their workplace. In one case I conducted a telephone interview as the interviewee lived in Picton, in the South Island. I asked the interviewees to read and sign a


consent form before the interview commenced which asked whether they wished their interview to be recorded and whether they wished to remain anonymous. I audio‐recorded each interview with a portable digital audio recorder device. Most interviewees did not mind their name being linked to any quotations in the thesis while a minority asked to remain anonymous.

Organisation Current‐member

Former‐member

TOTAL

Government Agency/Local Council DoC – cultural heritage 4 5 9DoC – natural heritage 2 4 6Auckland Regional Council – cultural heritage

3 2 5

Auckland Regional Council – natural heritage

1 0 1

Waitakere City Council 1 0 1Community Trusts and Maori Iwi Motutapu Restoration Trust 2 0 2Ngai Tai 2 0 2Rangitoto Island Bach Community Association

3 0 3

Rangitoto Island Historic Conservation Trust

2 0 2

Private Heritage Management Consultancies Salmond Reed Arch. 1 0 1Treadwell Associates 1 0 1Boffa Miskell 1 0 1Clough Associates 1 0 1Other organizations Auckland Museum 1 0 1NZ Geological Society 1 0 1University of Auckland 1 2 3Farming New Zealand 1 0 1TOTAL 28 13 41

Table 1. Breakdown of interviewees by organisation

Table 2. Breakdown of interviewees by island

At each interview I used a set of up to 40 questions relating to five themes to facilitate discussion (Figure 5). The themes related directly to the aims and objectives of the research. The questions asked at each interview varied according to the interests, experiences and views of the interviewee. As a result, not all questions were asked and the wording was not necessarily the same for all interviewees. The questions asked initially were easy‐to‐answer questions about the interviewee’s

Island TotalRangitoto 26 Motutapu 21


background, current responsibilities, and associations with the island case studies. These questions allowed the interviewee to become accustomed to the interview, myself and topics before I asked questions which required deeper reflection on heritage issues and their association with the islands. The interviews generally lasted for 60 minutes, and ranged from 30 minutes to 120 minutes in duration.

A lot of useful information was generated from the interviews. The flexible nature of the semi‐structured interviews meant that there was the chance to go back over previous questions and ask the same questions in different ways in order to explore issues more thoroughly. I was also able to craft questions into the discussion as it progressed. Background:

‐ Involvement with heritage organisation or Rangitoto or Motutapu Heritage issues and tensions relating to natural heritage and cultural heritage:

‐ Understandings of nature and culture, ‐ Heritage issues encountered

Origins of the issue:

‐ Contributing factors to the issue, ‐ The impact of New Zealand’s context and identity, DoC management, and

the influence of islandness on the issue

Best management of the issue: ‐ Best management and ideal outcomes of the issue, ‐ How natural heritage and cultural heritage can co‐exist

More information:

‐ Recommendations of literature or others to interview Figure 5. Question themes for the interviews

During the interviews I took notes as a backup in case the audio files were

lost or stolen. The notes also assisted in identifying important points made by the interviewee. I transcribed the interviews either the day of, or the day after, the interview. From previous experience I found that transcribing the interviews close to when the interview was held was far easier than transcribing them a while after they had been conducted. The use of semi‐structured interviews generated a large amount of information available for analysis. Once all the interviews were completed I coded (categorising the transcripts into themes) and analysed the interview transcript texts. I coded the interviews using Microsoft Word. As themes were found I created new documents and within these documents sub‐themes were established. I copied and pasted quotations relating to each sub‐theme into these documents. After each of these quotations I put the interviewees’ names in brackets in order for the comments to be traceable. As suggested by Cope (2003), I built and refined codes as the coding


process progressed. Ten main themes were found and for each theme there were between 5 to 20 sub‐themes.

Semi‐structured interviews are a simple and practical way for not only finding perspectives but also for clarifying complex questions and issues. In addition, an interview allows the interviewee to speak for themselves, providing more emotionally‐charged information, which cannot easily be attained through written (particularly official) material. However, there can also be some weaknesses to this method which I experienced during the research process (Sociology Central, n.d.). Much of the data gained from an interview relies heavily on the skill of the interviewer; for example, the ability to think of questions during an interview and to have a positive rapport with an interviewee. As interviewers may improve their practices with time and experience, there is a great chance that interviews undertaken at the end of the interview period may be more effective than those undertaken earlier. In addition, an interviewer may inadvertently give out signals and cues (such as the tone of voice when asking questions or making comments or making gestures) that may guide a respondent to give answers expected by the interviewer. An interview may also not be as valid or accurate as a written document when asking about historical events. For example, when asked about an event from the past, an interviewee my imperfectly recall events. Likewise, having reflected on the actions they did, an interviewee may rationalise their actions in hindsight, which may be different from what they may have felt at the time. Interviewees may also, after hearing what the research is on, express what they want the interviewer to hear. In many cases, interviewees would speak about the need to integrate natural heritage and cultural heritage. However, I found it difficult to know whether this was what they actually believed, or what they thought they should say. In my research I have assumed the former and taken their word for it, as to assume the latter could mean the research may be considered less reliable. Despite these weaknesses, I found semi‐structured interviews to provide highly useful information which could be used in conjunction with other methods such as documentary analysis and participant observation.

Participant Observation

I complemented the documentary analysis and in‐depth semi‐structured interviews with participant observation. I decided to use this method in order to gain other information which could not be obtained from the other methods. Participant observation can provide additional descriptive information and contextual understanding before, during and after other data collection (Flick, 2006; Kearns, 2000; Laurier, 2003).

To use Gold’s (1956) term, the “participant‐as‐observer” observation technique was used for this research. In other words, I made observations while participating in the activities being observed. The main activities observed were tree planting and weeding days on Motutapu, and guided tours and heritage days on both Rangitoto and Motutapu. I visited Rangitoto and Motutapu on numerous occasions in order to observe these activities. I wrote visual and audio observations down in a note book, took photos to illustrate and capture observations, and held informal conversations with visitors, volunteers and workers participating in the activities. I visited both the islands during the Auckland Heritage Festival in


September/October 2009. During this time the community trusts of the islands organised heritage tours for visitors, with volunteers from the trusts taking visitors to various important historical sites. During the heritage festival on Rangitoto there were guided tours of the baches, the former labourers’ quarters, and the kidney fern glen close to Rangitoto wharf, and of the baches at Islington Bay. On Motutapu there were guided tours of the World War II military sites, Maori archaeological sites, and buildings relating to the farming of the island from the early 20th century. I also visited Motutapu during days when volunteers did tree‐planting and weeding and during the MRT’s “Make a Weekend of It” programme. During this programme, a group of up to 35 people is met at Rangitoto wharf by a MRT volunteer on a Saturday morning and then taken on a four‐hour guided walk over Rangitoto and Motutapu to Administration Bay (a former military camp, now used by an outdoor education camp). There the group has the opportunity to visit the museum displaying the history of the island, explore the outdoor education camp activities, or be taken on a tour of the World War II gun emplacements and structures. The group then stays overnight at the former Officers’ Quarters before helping other volunteers do tree‐planting on the island on the Sunday. The programme is organised four times a year by the MRT.

By observing and experiencing the activities and happenings at the islands I was able to understand more clearly issues and problems regarding the management of cultural heritage on the islands. Participant observation provides a context for research and allows the researcher to experience the place which is being studied. However, one may not always be able to discover what is “behind” a particular issue using solely participant observation means. It is therefore best to use participant observation as a method which complements other methodological approaches, rather than the sole source of information.

Conclusion

This article has discussed and appraised the methodological approach used for my doctoral research on the cultural heritage management on conservation islands in New Zealand. Some important and useful points can be taken from this article for those pursuing research in the same area of study or using a similar research approach. The choice of case study examples needs to be carefully considered. Case studies should be treated as representative examples of the general issue. One should also not be too ambitious with the number of case studies selected. Although it may appear to strengthen the research by depicting a number of examples of an issue, too many case studies will generate too much work, resulting in the researcher not being able to digest and analyse the case study findings in adequate detail. It is therefore better to have fewer case studies than too many. I found the use of three qualitative techniques for each case study to be highly advantageous. By doing this, I was able to triangulate information into robust and reliable knowledge. A foundation of documentary analysis relating to the issue in the past and present in combination with semi‐structured interviews from an illustrative sample of stakeholders meant I could make a thorough examination of tensions and conflict relating to the heritage issue for the two case study islands. I was able to complement these findings by using “participant‐as‐observer” observation which


provided description and detail not found from other sources. Although each method had its weaknesses and difficulties, I feel the methodology used for this research generated a workable amount of highly useful information to be distilled and analysed for discussion. I would recommend this methodological approach to be used by others researching similar issues. Acknowledgement

I wish to especially thank my PhD supervisors, Dr Gretel Boswijk and Professor Robin Kearns, for their superb guidance and encouragement. I also wish to thank my parents and my brother, Richard, for their unwavering support. Biography

David Bade is currently completing his PhD at the University of Auckland on cultural heritage management of conservation islands in New Zealand. His PhD followed on from his Master of Arts thesis, “Creating Heritage: the restoration of the heritage landscape of Motuihe Island, Hauraki Gulf” (University of Auckland, 2008). His main areas of research interest are in cultural geography, heritage management and island studies.


References

Auckland Council, (n. d.). Local History Online website, http://www.localhistoryonline.org.nz/.

Avery, C. (2007). San Juan Island National Historical Park: An Environmental History (Draft), National Park Service, Seattle.

Bade, D. (2008). Creating Heritage: the restoration of the heritage landscape of Motuihe Island. Master of Arts thesis, University of Auckland.

Bade, D. (2010). Issues and Tensions in Island Heritage Management: A Case Study of Motuihe Island, New Zealand. Island Studies Journal, 5 (1): 25‐42.

Baldacchino, G. (2006). Islands, Island Studies, Island Studies Journal. Island Studies Journal, 1 (1): 3‐18.

Bianchi, R. V. (2002). The Contested Landscapes of World Heritage on a Tourist Island: the case of Garajonay National Park, La Gomera. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 8 (2): 81‐97.

Blundell, S. (2004). High & Goodbye. Heritage New Zealand, 94 (Spring): 18‐21. Bray, D., 2007. Sustainable Management of Historic Heritage: Discussion Paper No. 5: High Country Tenure Review – Implications for Historic Heritage and Landscapes in the South Island High Country. Wellington: New Zealand Historic Places Trust.

Cameron, E., B. Hayward and G. Murdoch (2008). A Field Guide to Auckland: exploring the region’s natural and historic heritage. Auckland: Godwit.

Chalana, M. (2005). With Heritage So Wild: Cultural Landscape Management in the U.S. National Parks. Doctoral thesis, University of Colorado.

Cope, M. (2003). Coding Transcripts and Diaries, in N. Clifford and G. Valentine, Key Methods in Geography. London: Sage Publications.

Cronon, W. (2003). The Riddle of the Apostle Islands. Orion, 22 (May‐June): 36‐42. Deacon, H. (2004). Intangible Heritage in Conservation Management Planning: The

Case of Robben Island. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 10 (3): 309‐319. DoC (2011a). Rangitoto Island Scenic Reserve. DoC website,

http://www.doc.govt.nz/parks‐and‐recreation/places‐to‐visit/auckland/auckland‐area/rangitoto‐island‐scenic‐reserve/features/.

DoC (2011b). Motutapu Island. DoC website, http://www.doc.govt.nz/upload/documents/conservation/historic/by‐region/motutapu‐island‐map.pdf.

Dodd, A. (2007). Management of the Motutapu Archaeological Landscape. Archaeology in New Zealand, 50 (4): 253‐274.

Dodd, A. (2008). Motutapu Archaeological and Historic Landscapes: Heritage Assessment. Auckland: Department of Conservation.

Dunn, K. (2000). Interviewing. In I. Hay (ed), Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Feldman, J. & R. MacKreth (2004). Wasteland, Wilderness, or Workplace: Perceiving and Preserving the Apostle Islands. In D. Harmon, B. M. Kilgore, & G. Vietzke (eds), Protecting Our Diverse Heritage: The Role of Parks, Protected Areas, and Cultural Sites. (Proceedings of the 2003 George Wright Society / National Park Service Joint Conference.) Hancock, Michigan: The George Wright Society.


Feldman, J. (2004). Rewilding the Islands: Nature, History, and Wilderness at the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. Doctor of Philosophy thesis, University of Wisconsin‐Madison.

Flick, U. (2006). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. London : Sage Publications. Ford, C. (2009). Challenges in the Landscape: Memories of conserving historic heritage in the NSW park system1967‐2000. Sydney: Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW.

Fortwangler, C. (2009). A Place for the Donkey: Natives and Aliens in the US Virgin Islands. Landscape Research, 34 (2): 205‐222.

Gold., R. (1956). Roles in Sociological Field Observations. Social Forces 36: 217‐223. Great Barrier Island Directory of Visitor Information (GBIDVI) (n.d.). Great Barrier

Island Directory of Visitor Information Website, http://www.thebarrier.co.nz/maphaurakigulf.htm.

Griffiths, T. (1991). History and Natural History: Conservation Movements in Conflict?. In D. Mulvaney, The Humanities and the Australian Environment, Canberra: Australian Academy of the Humanities.

Griffiths, T. (1996). History and Natural History. In Hunters and Collectors: The Antiquarian Imagination in Australia. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

InSitu Heritage Ltd (2010). Kaupapa Tiaki Wahi Taonga O Moutohora. Whakatane: InSitu Heritage Ltd.

Kearns, R. (2000). Being There: Research through Observing and Participation. In I. Hay (ed), Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Keller, G., & J. Keller (2003). Preserving Important Landscapes. In R. Stipe (ed), A Richer Heritage, Historic Preservation in the Twenty‐First Century. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Laurier, E. (2003). Participant Observation, in N. Clifford and G. Valentine, Key Methods in Geography. London: Sage Publications.

Lennon, J. (2000). Conserving Cultural Heritage Values in Natural Areas: the Australian Experience. In Conference Proceedings: Heritage Economics: Challenges for heritage conservation and sustainable development in the 21st Century, 4 July 2000. Canberra: Australian National University.

Lennon, J., B. Egloff, A. Davey, & K. Taylor (1999). Conserving the cultural values of natural areas: a discussion paper. Canberra: Jane Lennon and Associates.

Longhurst, R. (2003). Semi‐structured Interviews and Focus Groups. In N. Clifford and G. Valentine. Key Methods in Geography, London: Sage Publications.

McCall, G. (1994). Nissology: A Proposal for Consideration. Journal of the Pacific Society, 17(2): 93‐106.

Miller, C., J. Craig, N. Mitchell, (1994). Ark 2020: A conservation vision for Rangitoto and Motutapu Islands. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 24 (1): 65‐90.

Miller, W. (1988). Public and Political History: The Story of an Island. Radical History Review, 40: 77‐81.

Mogalakwe, M. (2009). The Documentary Research Method – Using Documentary Sources in Social Research. Eastern Africa Social Science Research Review, 25 (1): 43‐58.

Motutapu Restoration Trust (MRT) (2010). MRT website, www.motutapu.org.nz.


National Library (n.d.). Papers Past, http://www.natlib.govt.nz/collections/digital‐collections.

Needham, A., J. Lindsay, I. Smith, P. Augustinus, & P. Shane (2011). Sequential Eruption of Alkaline and Sub‐Alkaline Magmas from a small Monogenetic volcano in The Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 201 (1‐4): 126‐142.

Olwig, K. (1980). National Parks, Tourism, and Local Development: A West Indian Case. Human Organization, 39 (1): 22‐31.

Rangitoto Island Bach Community Association (RIBCA) (2010). RIBCA website, http://www.ribca.org.nz/.

Rangitoto Island Historic Conservation Trust (RIHCT), 2010. RIHCT website, http://www.rangitoto.org/.

Reich, J. (2001). Re‐Creating the Wilderness: Shaping Narratives and Landscapes in Shenandoah National Park. Environmental History, 6 (1): 95‐117.

Royle, S. (2001). A Geography of Islands: Small island insularity. London: Routledge. Sociology Central (n.d.). Focussed Interviews, Sociology Central website,

http://www.sociology.org.uk/methfi.pdf. Somers, G. (2004). Cultural Resource Management in National Park Service

Wilderness Areas: Conflict or Cooperation?. In D. Harmon, B. M. Kilgore, & G. Vietzke (eds), Protecting Our Diverse Heritage: The Role of Parks, Protected Areas, and Cultural Sites. (Proceedings of the 2003 George Wright Society / National Park Service Joint Conference.) Hancock, Michigan: The George Wright Society.

The Commonwealth of Learning (n.d.). Manual for Educational Media Researchers: Knowing Your Audience. New Delhi: Commonwealth Educational Media Centre for Asia.

Towns, D., E. Wright, and T. Stephens (2009). Systematic measurement of effectiveness for conservation of biodiversity in New Zealand. In B. Clarkson, P. Kurian, T. Nachowitz, H. Reddie (eds), Conserv‐Vision Conference Proceedings: A celebration of 20 years of conservation by New Zealand’s Department of Conservation. Hamilton: The University of Waikato.

Treadwell, J. (2005). Islands of Architecture in the Hauraki Gulf. Master of Architecture thesis, University of Auckland, Auckland.

Trotter, M. & B. McCulloch (1999). Impact of a planting programme on historic and archaeological sites of Quail Island, Lyttelton Harbour. Wellington: Department of Conservation.

Valentine, G. (2005). Tell me about...: using interviews as a research methodology. In R. Flowerdew and D. Martin (eds), Methods in Human Geography: A guide for students doing a research project. Harlow: Pearson Education.

Watt, L. (2002). The trouble with preservation, or, getting back to the wrong term for wilderness protection: a case study at Point Reyes National Seashore. Yearbook of the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers, 64: 55‐72.

Wilcox, M. (2007). Natural history of Rangitoto Island, Hauraki Gulf, Auckland, New Zealand. Auckland: Auckland Botanical Society.

Wockner, G. (1997). Policy Conundrums in the National Parks: Nature, Culture and the Wolves of Isle Royale. Doctor of Philosophy thesis, University of Colorado.

Yin, R. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Los Angeles: Sage.

An Approach to Researching Cultural Heritage … · An Approach to Researching Cultural Heritage Management on Conservation Islands in ... however, I discovered that there ... their

Documents