2.3. I NTRODUCTI ON
Tllis section presents results from a nationwide survey aimed at identifying how regional authorities are actually implementing their sustainable land management (SLM) policy. While all New Zealand authorities have defined policy open to eXillllination such policy does not necessarily translate to how authorities are actually promoting SLM. Internal dysfunction, misinterpretation, lack of communication and lack of resources may all contribute to discrepancies between intended and the actual implementation of policy. Hence, it is important to focus on implementation rather than the policy itself, to gain a more representative indication of how authorities are promoting SLM.
Identifying how authorities are actually promoting SLM also has directly important implications towards farm sustainability. Authorities are required to promote SLM for the common good, which may conflict with why agricultural resources are managed for the good of individuals and the farming community. Under tile Resource Management Act (RMA, 1 99 1 ), authorities have considerable regulatory and coercive powers, and can have a strong deternlining influence on tile what why and how of resource management witllin farm sustainability.
I nterview survey was used to assess how autllOrities are promoting SLM. A survey was used in preference to policy analysis to gain a more representative insight into actual metllods of implementation, as opposed to i ntended or planned methods of implementation. Results are presented primarily as tables with a brief discussion. Emphasis is given to broad interpretation because of the sizeable number of NZ regional authorities, illld the complex and intertwined nature of policy instruments.
2.4. M ETHOD
Investigating how SLM is being promoted throughout NZ involved the design of a questionnaire targeting senior representatives from each of NZ' s 16 regional authorities. initially intended to be implemented through mail survey. Prior testing of the questionnaire resulted in a major redesign, and the subsequent adoption of an interview approach over mail survey (based around a structured and semi-structured questiOlUlaire). However, failure to rigorously test in an interview setting caused problems and subsequent onlission of part of the questionnaire. Participants were nominated through their attendance at the September 2000 Land Managers' Meeting, engaged through email, and interviewed in-person during a national study tour.
2 . 4. 1 QUESTI ONNAIRE
A three part questionnaire was designed for the study (Appendix I I). The first part involved broad policy
instruments, while the second was orientated towards identifying specific SLM progranunes used by each regional authority. The third part represents a stand-alone study concerning fann plans reported in Chapter 6. Policy i nstruments represent tools used by regional authorities to implement their policy, while delivery/extension methods represent the avenue tluough which policy instruments are delivered.
Part One was divided into hvo questions as an attempt to distinguish regulation, assistance and education
instruments, from tllOse used as extension or delivery instruments. Both questions use the same structure of tIuee sub-questions based on a 1 -5 LIKERT scale. Such a scale was used because the original intent was to analyse the responses tluough statistical procedures. The participant was asked to rank the present degree of instrument use;
how they predict that degree of use is likely to change in the next 5 - 10 years according to existing council trends; and how the participant would personally like to see the instrument ' s use change over the next 5- 1 0 years. In doing so, the quest ionnaire attempted to separate participants' informed and professional judgements from their personal opinions.
Scales were presented diagrammatically beneath each question to aid interpretation. Policy instruments and methods of delivery were listed, and defined on an appended document (Appendix Il). Definitions were for the i nterviewer' s reference, and were explained to the participants during the course of each interview. A total of six questions were given, to be answered according to eleven policy instruments and ten extension/delivery methods, giving a grand total of 63 individual potential responses.
Instruments and delivery/extension methods were identified through general literature review (Morriss, 1 998; Sapsford, 1 998 & 1 999: Kneebone et al. 2000; MfE, 2000b). and the targeted review of Regiona1 Policy Statements and regional plans to isolate which types of policy instruments are being used to fulfil policy objectives.
Whereas Part One focused on individual instruments and delivery/extension methods, Part Two was concerned with discrete SLM programmes that group many instruments and delivery/extension methods as a package. Seven questions were presented. The first was used to ask respondents to name and list the SLM programmes their respective authorities use to promote SLM, followed by the other questions asking the respondents to indicate: land use(s) targeted with each programme: targeted environmental issues and their relative priority; farmer constraints that each programme aims to address; types of instruments used in each programme; types of extension/delivery methods used: and a 1 -9 ranking of perceived programme effectiveness (ranging from ' no desired outcomes effected' through to 'all desired outcomes effected'. Questions were presented with several coded optional replies, whereby codes were entered into a table according to each stated SLM programme.
The third section of the questionnaire concerning environmental farm plans is explained and discussed in Chapter 6.
2.4.2 CHOICE OF SURVEY METHOD
The original intent was to use a mail survey due to the extensive geographical area covered by regional authorities, and the difficulty and cost of visiting each regional authority office. However, after testing (see below), it was decided to redesign the questionnaire as a basis for an interview survey. Reasons for this include:
1 . Approaches currently being used to promote SLM is a complex topic. Application of the study through mail survey would have required considerable supporting information. Such information would be necessary to explain what an instrument is, what the defining features of the listed instruments are, and instructions were considered necessary for the somewhat confusing structure. The volume of required documentation would be considerable, and was likely to be a factor detracting from a positive survey response.
2. A relatively low cost method of interviewing regional authority representatives in person was identified (Section 2. 1 .4).
3 . I nterview procedures are recognised as the most effective way of enlisting cooperation towards a positive survey response (Floyd, 1 993). The regional authority representatives targeted are busy people, and may have
been comparatively disinterested in participating in a mai l survey, relative to accommodating someone who was prepared to make the effort and investment to visit each regional authority in person.
4. Face-to-face interviews can be used to provide additional i nformation through the manner and tone that participants adopt when making a response. Likewise, otherwise hidden or suggested i nformation may be extracted through careful prompting, which cannot be achieved through mail survey.