Table Of ContentWhose stream is it anyway?
Community identification in Okeover Stream, Canterbury.
Natalie Scott1, Femke Reitsma2 and Kate Hewson3
1Summer student, University of Canterbury, 2Department of Geography, University of Canterbury,
3Sustainability Office, Facilities Management, University of Canterbury.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Okeover Stream flows for 1.5 kilometres through the University of Canterbury and the suburb Ilam.
It is used as a research and teaching site by students and staff and has since 1999 been the focus of
campus waterways rehabilitation projects. Okeover is used as a case study in exploring different
ways of identifying the community associated with a resource. The catchment community can be
defined in multiple ways, presenting different understandings of the stream’s stakeholders.
Knowledge of the resource's community allows communication to be better targeted to the wide
range of people who interact with the stream.
Key words: catchment, community, management, resource, stream, university.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
1. Introduction
Resources take the shape of the community in which they are located. They are not static, but shift
and reflect the values and actions of the people and places around them. Not only do humans
deliberately modify natural resources, but small, seemingly inconsequential actions can have a flow‐
on effect that results in a large shift in the nature of the resource downstream. Management of a
resource, then, cannot merely focus on the resource itself, but must include a wider view of people
and places that are acting upon it. The best resource management practices first identify the
stakeholders with which the resource is related.
This research seeks to present alternative methods of identifying the immediate stakeholders
associated with a common pool resource and, furthermore, to define the wider community of the
resource. This information can then be used to construct a list of contact points for future
communication about the resource in question.
The Okeover Stream is one resource that provides a case study of the different ways in which a
community can be defined and identified, with regards to an urban stream. The stream is a small
waterway in Otautahi‐Christchurch, New Zealand. Management of the Okeover catchment is a
crucial part of maintaining river health, but the responsibility for catchment maintenance needs to
1
fall as much on the local stakeholders in the catchment as on the Christchurch City Council. In this
way, the wishes and needs of the people living near Okeover can be incorporated into the future of
the stream, and the issues presented by the stream are jointly owned by those who have an interest
in its future.
It is important to realise that the definition of a community is not restricted to physical boundaries.
A catchment is conventionally defined simply by geographic boundaries. In this case, a more useful
method of identifying the community is by looking at the ‘social catchment’. This includes all the
people associated with the resource without restricting the identification process to those in close
physical proximity to the stream. Some of these alternative ways of explaining the community
incorporate traffic moving through the catchment, stormwater flow into the stream and an
acknowledgement of the history of interactions between the stream and the people around it. These
will be discussed in detail in Section 5 below.
The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 reviews some of the literature associated with
stakeholder identification while section 3 outlines the current thinking in watershed management.
Section 4 presents the specific details of Okeover Stream and section 5 gives an overview of each
definition of the community associated with the stream. Section 6 shows how the information
gained from the community identification process could be used to facilitate community
engagement programs. The paper concludes with a list of the people and organisations that need to
be the starting points for any future community based management plans of the stream.
2. Stakeholder Identification
Common pool resources are those where both benefits and costs impact on all members of the
community. Everyone stands to gain from better understanding and administration of the resource
(Husain, 2009). Individuals and groups with an interest in such a resource are collectively known as
‘stakeholders’; however, the problem remains as to who the stakeholders actually are, and how best
to identify them (Achterkamp & Vos, 2007).
One oft‐quoted definition is from Freeman, who states “any group or individual who can affect or is
affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives” is a stakeholder (1984: 46). This
definition is not without contention, as it allows anyone, no matter how far removed from the
everyday goings‐on of the resource, to be interpreted as a stakeholder. For practical purposes, a
stakeholder must hold a direct and traceable connection to the resource at hand. Much of the
debate about stakeholders has used a business‐centred definition (Neville & Mengue, 2006). In
contrast to this, community based management tends to focus on stakeholders that have
traditionally used or managed a resource (Wittayapak & Dearden, 1999).
Thus far, most of the research on the communities associated with resources has focused on
stakeholder identification. The theory of stakeholders has been widely applied in both business
circles (e.g. Freeman, 1984), and subsequently in the management of natural resources (Ravenborg
& Westermann, 2002; Neville & Mengue, 2006). Management schemes that incorporate
stakeholders into their planning and implementation are much more likely to attain the desired
2
outcomes. The process of identifying stakeholders is closely related to that of defining where the
boundaries of the catchment fall. While those people that live near to a resource can be defined as
stakeholders, a broader definition of stakeholders will include all those groups or individuals that are
connected to the resource, even if they are not in close physical proximity to it. Recognition of this
is a necessary step towards suitable management of the resource.
The stakeholders for a business and for a local resource are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Leafcutter ants (Atta cephalotes) in Columbia have detrimental effects on both the local economy
and resources, for example, resulting in tensions between farmers, policy makers, and different
ethnic groups in the Andean mountains (Ravenborg & Westermann, 2002). Stakeholder
identification, through a series of community talks and meetings, allowed the groups to develop a
cohesive action plan within their own community, to deal with the transboundary ant problem. In
this case, stakeholders were seen as those homogenous groups with an underlying common interest
in the resource.
Some communities manage resources by retaining traditional, formalised rules pertaining to the
resource at hand. In Indonesia, indigenous forest communities managed the forested headwaters of
their nearby catchments through a series of locally enforced rules, to preserve the integrity of the
forest and the culture associated with it (Wittayapak & Dearden, 1999). The stakeholders in this
case were recognised as being the people with longstanding, resource‐based ties to the land.
In this study, the stakeholders are recognised as being those with direct links to Okeover Stream,
either by location living or travelling in the catchment, or by interacting with the stream through the
community. In the cases of both location‐based and resource‐based ties, some of the stakeholders
are unaware of the stream or of their impacts on the resource, and so are included in the
community associated with Okeover without necessarily being conscious of the ways in which they
engage with the catchment.
Any process that involves dividing areas up encounters the modifiable area unit problem (MAUP).
This states that the way in which an area is divided up changes the conclusions that can be drawn
from the data (Dark and Bram, 2007). In this context, MAUP means that the way in which the area of
‘Okeover Catchment’ is defined will have major implications for the final understanding of the
community associated with the resource.
3. Watershed management thus far
The traditional view of a catchment is simply as a hydrological unit used in management regimes
(Warner, 2006). From this hydrological definition, a catchment is demarcated by an area on the
ground in which all surface and ground water flows into a specified channel (Mitchell & Hollick,
1993). In terms of community identification, this is not satisfactory, for though it covers the
technical matter of water flow it does not take into account the ways in which people interact with
the water course. In addition, the increased impermeability of urban catchments means that less
rainwater reaches the stream through natural groundwater channels, but rather passes through a
drainage system that does not necessarily correspond to the natural flow of water.
3
Kaler (2003) points out that institutions have as much responsibility to their stakeholders as to their
shareholders. As much of the initial management of the stream has fallen to the Christchurch City
Council, in the context of the Okeover case study, this institution in particular needs to consider the
effects of action on the community as well as the social or economic repercussions. This is what
Neville & Mengue (2006) call ‘corporate social responsibility’, and requires recognition that the
stakeholders, both individually and collectively, can have a large affect on an organisation.
The formalised body of thought related specifically to the management of stream and rivers is
termed integrated catchment management (Mitchell & Hollick, 1993) or, alternatively, integrated
basin management (Jongman & Padovani, 2006). Integrated management of a water resource
involves halting degeneration of the land and water resources by coordinating management
between different state agencies, policies and activities (Mitchell & Hollick, 1993). This cohesive
social action begins with the identification of the people who form the community of the resource.
4. Details of Okeover Stream
¯
Headwaters
Ephemerals E
E
M ROAD Wetlands RiffleRuns
A
IL E
E
MeandersAD
O
Okeover catchment R
E
D
Y
L
C
0 50 100 200Meters
Figure 1: Sections of Okeover Stream
Okeover Stream is a small urban waterway in western Christchurch, New Zealand. It measures 1.53
km from the top of the ephemeral section to its junction with the River Avon. The section of the
stream that runs year‐round (between the headwaters at Ilam Road to the junction with the River
Avon) is only 1 km long.
4
The stream can be divided into five sections: ephemerals, headwaters, wetlands, riffle‐runs and
meanders (figure 1). The ephemerals run through Ilam Fields and are dry most of the year. The
headwaters flow between Ilam Road and Engineering Road, and underwent rehabilitation in 2003.
The section of the stream beside the civil and mechanical engineering building is known as the
wetlands, and was developed in 2001 (O’Brien & Barker, 2005). Beside the electrical engineering
department is a 60 metre series of riffles and runs, created in 1999‐2000. Finally, the meanders
section of the stream flows beside the School of Forestry and the Maori Department, and was
developed in 2005i. From there, the stream flows through a short length of residential housing
0F
before joining the Avon River.
Because the stream runs through the University campus, it has become a prime research site for
academic staff and students interested in streams, freshwater ecology and urban rehabilitation. One
consequence of this is that there is a wealth of knowledge about the stream’s biological community
(Blakely & Harding, 2005), records of chemical and pollution levels (Farrant, 2006) and knowledge of
changing flow values. Many of these records have been kept throughout the rehabilitation process,
so that the effects of planting riparian vegetation and naturalising the stream flow can be seen in the
biotic assemblages.
Given the importance of Okeover for University research, and that 99% of the river’s length is on
University property (64% through the main campus, 35% through Ilam Fields), it is fitting for the
University to be interested in maintaining the health of the stream and the associated catchment. It
is equally important to engage with the wider community of the stream as their actions also have
significant effects on Okeover. Community engagement programmes must be developed to meet
the needs of the people being targeted, and so the question remains: whose stream is Okeover
Stream?
5. Community and Stakeholders of Okeover Stream
Nine different definitions of stream communities are discussed below. Firstly, the natural
boundaries of the watershed on land are defined. Okeover has undergone many alterations over
time, so the third definition takes into account the historical changes associated with the stream.
Thirdly, the stormwater watershed maps the water that flows into the stream through pipes and
drains. Many pollutants come from roads, so the fourth aspect of the community is the people who
drive through the watershed. The fifth definition discusses the groups and organisations within
stream community, while the sixth includes the people that work in the watershed. It is also
important to realise that people are not the only ones who use the stream. Acknowledgement of
non‐human populations is a vital stem in maintaining stream health and is the seventh definition.
Finally, an understanding of the political and managerial stakeholders in Okeover Stream is crucial to
implementing change in the catchment.
5
5.1 Natural Watershed
The natural boundaries of the catchment were calculated using the ArcHydro extension to ArcMap,
an ESRITM product as part of the ArcGIS suite of tools. Water drains downhill, so the drainage area is
delineated using a digital elevation model (DEM) of Otautahi‐Christchurch at 25 metre resolution.
ArcHydro calculates the cell‐to‐cell flow of water based on the DEM, and from this generates the
catchment boundary. Olivera et al. (2002) caution, however, that manual editing of catchment
boundaries may be necessary in places, such as Otautahi‐Christchurch, where the terrain is
predominantly flat and the waterways are frequently artificially altered from their natural flow
patterns.
ArcHydro calculated the total area of the catchment to be 0.87 km2. This extends from Solway
Avenue in the west to Straven Road in the east, and from close to Maidstone Road at the most
northern point to Totara Street in the south. This area encompasses all of Okeover Stream, as well
as small portion of the River Avon. It also intersects Waymouth Drain (the eastern section of
Waimairi Stream) at two points. Clearly, a catchment for one stream cannot contain a different
stream. To remedy this, the catchment was artificially cut at the junction of the Avon and Okeover
(figure 2), and the western end of the catchment retained. The clipped catchment has an area of
0.61 km2.
¯
WAIMA Waimairi Stream
IR
I R
O Waymouth Drain
A
D Okeover St r eam CREYKE ROAD
Avon River
IL
A
M
R
O
A
D
Okeover Catchment Streams
0 200 400Meters
Figure 2: Okeover Stream Catchment Excluded Roads
Included
5.2. Historical Changes to Okeover Stream
Management of a resource needs to acknowledge the placement of the resource in space and time.
In particular, the way in which the community has used the resource in the past impacts on the way
6
it can be used in the future. The community of the resource, therefore, can include all those that
have interacted with it in the past as well as those that influence it in the present.
The waterways of Otautahi‐Christchurch have long been the subject of debate. The 360 km of open
waterways originally provided mahinga kai (food) for the Māori inhabitants of the area (Atkinson,
Kilvington & Fenemor, 2009). Later, when European settlers arrived, vast area of swamp and
wetlands were drained to open the land for agriculture and development. A change in philosophy
over the last 50 years has seen the city’s focus move from controlling and containing the water, to
rehabilitating the waterways and promoting the reestablishment of natural and native ecosystems
(Christchurch City Council, 2003).
Okeover Stream has seen considerable modification since the settlement of Otautahi‐Christchurch.
The catchment has become increasingly impermeable with the shift from forest and open grass to
roads and concrete surfaces (Farrant, 2006). This has resulted in a swifter flow of rainwater into the
stream, and consequentially more extreme high and low stream flows. Urbanisation has brought
with it an increase in pollution. This is in part a follow‐on effect of increasing population density and
the generation of waste. Major roads laid through the catchment have suffered an upswing in traffic
volumes and a corresponding increase in pollution in water runoff (Farrant, 2006).
The Okeover, along with other tributaries of the Avon, was historically fed by multiple small springs
in the headwaters. These springs have been decreasing in flow volume since the mid 1980’s, with
completely dry periods becoming more regular since the mid 1990’s. This pattern is common for the
Avon tributaries and means that the water in the stream is mainly now supplied by non‐natural
means (English, 2006). Most of the base flow in the Okeover is a result of output from the
University’s air‐conditioning system. The water flow therefore shifts between high flow in the spring
and autumn, and low flow at night, on weekends and in winter (Farrant, 2006).
As part of the urbanization process, Otautahi‐Christchurch settlers restricted the stream channels to
prevent them flooding and damaging emerging infrastructure. This involved constructing wooden or
concrete channels through which the stream flowed (Christchurch City Council, 2003). These
channels were void of riparian vegetation and often maintained low flows and poor water quality
(Environment Canterbury 2001). While these box sections have subsequently been removed from
much of the river, sections still remain in the upper reaches of the headwaters (to the immediate
east of Ilam Road) and in the ephemerals (Farrant, 2006).
5.3. Stormwater Watershed
Water falling on impermeable surfaces does not flow overland in the conventional fashion, but is
instead channelled through pipes and drains to reach a stream. Drains do not necessarily follow the
contours of the land and, as such, the stormwater catchment can be quite different to that of the
natural overland flow. A 25 metre resolution DEM was used to calculate the highest points in the
roads surrounding the stream. The houses that faced onto the roads on the Okeover side of the high
points were included in the catchment. In addition, where private drain networksii had outfalls that
1F
flowed to Okeover stream, the houses that were drained by the pipes were included.
7
¯
!!!!! !!!!
! !! ! ! !!!! !!!!!! !!!! !!!!
! !!! !!!!
!!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! !!! !!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!! !
!! ! !!!! !!!
!!! ! !!
! !!!!! !!
!!! !
!
!
0 200 400Meters
! Sumps Streams
Stormwater drains Stormwater drainage
Overland drainage
Figure 3: Drainage systems in Okeover Catchment
Figure 3 shows that while the stormwater catchment and conventional catchment overlap
significantly, the stormwater catchment is larger (0.91 km2 compared to 0.61 km2). This means that
the overall ‘impact catchment’ (the area in which a household’s water flows to the stream via either
overland or piped drainage) has an area of 0.94 km2.
The water inputs to the stream from stormwater drains are quite different to those from overland
flow. Stormwater inputs are characterised by intense pulses of high water flow at irregular intervals.
These tend to have very high levels of contaminants in the water. In particular, areas of high vehicle
use accumulate zinc and copper (from brake pads), chromium (from road paint) and lead.
Residential areas result in zinc and copper moving into the stormwater system as they are eroded
from the inside of piping. Testing of the Okeover during a flood event revealed high concentrations
of zinc, lead, copper and chromium (Farrant, 2006). These contaminants all moved through the
stormwater system. The baseflow in the stream, from the overland drainage, is generally at a more
continuous and lower level, but can also be high in contaminants (Blakely & Harding, 2005).
5.4. People who drive though the watershed
Stormwater drains carry more than just rainwater. Large impermeable surfaces such as roads and
carparks act as collecting sites for pollutants, which are then washed into the drainage system and
through into the rivers (Farrant, 2006). Because of this, the people who do not live in the
8
catchment, but frequently commute through it, can have a large impact on the health of the stream
and so must be counted as a part of the stream community.
Traffic flowiii in the catchment is evenly balanced between morning and evening traffic counts. In the
2F
morning, traffic movement is predominantly in an easterly and southerly direction. Between 8 and 9
am, approximately 5200 vehicles entered the catchment area. In contrast, evening flow moves in a
north and west direction. Again, approximately 5200 vehicles were recorded entering the catchment
area between 5 and 6 pm.
Heavy vehicles move in slightly different patterns to regular cars. In the morning, 141 heavy vehicles
entered that catchment, mostly moving in a north‐south direction and spread equally between then
three monitored roads. Most did not turn at the intersections, meaning that the vehicles’ journeys
through the catchment were in a north‐south direction. In the afternoon only 73 heavy vehicles
entered the catchment.
The roads through the catchment are also frequently used by bicycles. These follow the general
traffic patterns, flowing south‐east in the morning and north‐west in the evening. A secondary
pattern underlying this is a tendency for bikes to flow east‐west through the catchment rather than
north south, which means that they remain in the catchment for longer. Finally, the bicycle users
tend to go straight through intersections, rather than turning, more often than other vehicle users.
Five bus routes operate in the catchment (figure 4). Four of these traverse Maidstone Road, and one
stops along Clyde Road. The impact of a bus is less than that of a car, as it carries more passengers,
but buses are far from pollution‐free. Idling buses, in particular diesel fuelled buses, have been
criticised for excessive air pollution (Hess, 2007).
¯
23
O
3
21 21
3
21
3
20
Roads
0 200 400 Meters
Buses
Figure 4: Bus routes through Okeover Catchment
9
Catchment
5.5. Groups along the stream
Within Otautahi‐Christchurch, community boards are responsible for representing and advocating
the needs and interests of the citizens. Okeover catchment straddles two community wards. The
Fendalton‐Waimairi ward extends to the north of Creyke Road, while the Riccarton‐Wigram board
covers the area south of Creyke and Maidstone Roads. River and stream care groups are common
throughout Otautahi‐Christchurch, such as the Ashley‐Rakahuri Rivercare Group and the Styx Living
Laboratory Trust.
These boards represent groups that live in the catchment as well as groups that might be concerned
about the future of the stream. Involvement of community groups needs to be directed through
these community boards to ensure that all groups have the opportunity to air their views.
Perhaps the largest single group that holds a stake in the future of Okeover Stream is the University
of Canterbury. Since 1999, there have been extensive and ongoing stream rehabilitation projects
carried out within the University (see section 4). This was initially a student‐led project aiming to re‐
establish native riparian vegetation and to provide a green corridor linking rehabilitated area of the
stream. These goals expanded to include wider ecological goals, such as restoring the biodiversity of
the stream community, and social goals, such as bringing the University community together to
conserve and restore the stream environmentiv.
3F
Within the University the groups involved in stream management are Facilities Management
(especially the sustainability office), the freshwater ecology research group, ecological engineering
and Kakariki, the campus environment club. These groups liaise with the Christchurch City Council to
coordinate restoration, monitor the waterway and promote awareness of the issues associated with
Okeover.
The University also has a large physical effect on the water in the stream. As mentioned in section
5.2, the air conditioning system in university buildings operates by extracting water from an aquifer,
passing it through a heat exchange and discharging the water into the Okeover at several points
along the stream’s length. This means that the water flowing into the stream is slightly warmer than
expected, and has an unusually high copper content as a result of passing though the University’s
piping system (Farrant, 2006).
Most of the other groups situated along the length of the stream are affiliated with the University.
University Hall backs onto the ephemeral section of the stream. It is home to 557 students through
the university year, many of who regularly cross over the stream to reach Ilam Fields. Two early
childhood centres are located on the banks of the Okeover. The University of Canterbury Student’s
Association (UCSA) affiliated Montana Early Learning Centre caters to 30 children under 3 ½ years.
The Early Years Care and Education facility (including the Sheila Walker and Early Childhood Learning
Centre) is affiliated with the University itself. Further downstream is the Community Garden,
maintained by the UC Sustainability Office. At the junction of Okeover Stream and Forestry Road are
the Scion (originally Forest Research Institute) offices.
10
Description:stream that runs year-round (between the headwaters at Ilam Road to the being targeted, and so the question remains: whose stream is Okeover.
