Although the objective of this panel does not refer to strategic environmental objectives, we cannot achieve social and economic objectives without considering the inherent link between social and economic well-being and a quality environment. People are part of nature and we cannot survive without recognising that link.

We depend on natural and physical resources for our supply of the basic requirements of life - energy for heat and mobility, the capacity to assimilate waste and provide us with an appropriate climate to live in and air to breathe, resources to provide shelter and food for quality living, biodiversity to ensure a future for ourselves (and valuable exotic species) and our native species, and landscapes to provide us with natural amenities and spiritual and cultural relationships with nature. While we share many of these linkage principles with other nations, there are also unique features for New Zealand: in particular, there is a fundamental relationship between the tangata whenua of New Zealand and our natural environment.

In New Zealand our economy is largely reliant on our unique environment. A recent survey found that the New Zealand population believes that both clean up and protection of the environment will help contribute significantly to the growth of the New Zealand economy.

'Clean and Green' is important in both domestic and international markets. Our natural heritage is a draw card for tourism (in 1996 tourism generated $4.8 billion in overseas earnings - this is projected to almost double by the year 2000) and our biodiversity has monetary and non-monetary value.

A recent international survey shows that New Zealand has one of the highest levels of public concern about environmental problems. Surveys of New Zealand businesses have also found that up to three quarters thought it was in their interests to preserve New Zealand's high environmental reputation.

The government recognises these issues through explicit environmental objectives - in the Strategic Result Areas, in the Coalition Agreement and in the Environment 2010 Strategy. The Government's vision for the environment is "a clean healthy unique environment, sustaining nature and people's needs and aspirations".

In this presentation, I will focus, on the implications of population change, internal migration and the growth of cities in achieving strategic environmental objectives.

The State of New Zealand's Environment shows that in the relatively short time people have been in New Zealand our activities have had a massive impact on the New Zealand environment. Biodiversity is one area that has suffered particularly - nearly 1000 species are considered to be threatened and we have lost 85% of our wetlands and lowland forests.

The report also shows that we still have a long way to go in terms of gathering the information we need to make sound and sustainable decisions - at individual, community, and local and central government levels.

We are now gathering and collating environmental information in a useful form, working on environmental performance indicators at the Ministry for the Environment in consultation with stakeholders to monitor environmental trends, and we have many mechanisms at national, regional and local levels addressing the opportunities and threats to achieving our vision. We need to ensure, however, that our efforts acknowledge the actual relationships between human activities and environmental outcomes.

The concept of ecological footprint represents our use of land area per capita to provide a year's supply of goods and services. It includes energy use and the assimilation of waste as well as our use of natural resources and our use of forest and farm products. New Zealand, as a developed nation, has a large ecological footprint by world standards (but not in relation to the OECD) - one study put our footprint at 9.8 hectares per person, as opposed to the global average of one hectare. An illustration of our footprint is our use of energy - our population rose by 17% between 1974 and 1995, but our energy consumption rose by 53%.

When we talk about the impacts of growth we mean the impact that development and the spread of urban physical resources has on natural resources. How does population change effect the environment? Paul Erlich's equation Impact = population x affluence x technology begins to suggest some of the complex causes of environmental change and degradation by humans and allows us to think about the various issues that may need managing in order to achieve the government's vision for the environment.

Eighty five percent of New Zealanders live in urban areas. Thirty percent of the entire New Zealand population lives in the Auckland region. In the last six or so years, most urban areas experienced growth. Some experienced major expansion - particularly the North Shore, Waitakere, Auckland and Manukau. Auckland region grew at that time by the equivalent of Dunedin - 119,000 people. 56% of this was from natural increase, 38% from overseas immigration and 6% from internal migration. We have seen an increasing proportion of people living in the north of the country, increasing urbanisation and movement of people from the south to the north. Some southern cities are suffering a decline in population, for instance Invercargill, or experiencing very slow growth, for instance Dunedin.

There are a host of pressures or threats that we face in urban areas in terms of the effects of our activities combined with growth, increasing affluence in certain sectors of the economy and advancing technology.

There are key pressures on our existing infrastructure - limited long-term maintenance of drains, sewers and water mains in the past has left many councils with a legacy that will be expensive to upgrade.

Related pressures include the effects of household and industrial waste generation, land, air and sea transport, water use, energy production, and land development. They affect fresh water quality and quantity, the marine and coastal environment, biodiversity and indigenous habitats, our amenity values, our open space, cultural and natural heritage, the quality of soil and the quality/sustainability of our atmosphere - indeed the health of our ecosystems in general. Noise and odour are further problems not often identified immediately as environmental problems but common in urban areas.

Some of these issues can be regarded as key priorities; solid waste, vehicle emissions (gaseous waste) and water quality and quantity are prime examples. However, this paper suggests that it is less population growth per se, and more the choices that we make about the nature of production and consumption activities, which determine the impacts of urban growth on the environment.

Waste generation and management

In May this year the Ministry for the Environment released the Waste Data Report which provides our latest information on waste. The average New Zealander generates 145,000 litres of sewage each year and 900 kilograms of landfill waste - this is increasing. Between 1983 and 1995 Auckland region doubled its landfill waste to 821,000 tonnes - this was an increase of 60% per person.

Most of the increases were generated in periods of high economic growth. This reflected fortunes of the building industry, the changing consumption patterns of homes and businesses and population growth. Manukau City is projected to fill its landfills to capacity in around 8 years. Rubbish going into landfills represents more than three quarters of a tonne for every man, woman and child in the city. This waste mountain will grow as the population increases unless strategies under development to decrease it are successful. The waste hierarchy (legislated for in the LGA) says that we should strive to reduce, reuse, recycle, recover, treat and then dispose in that order. Many councils, including Manukau, are setting clear targets and action plans to recognise the challenge.

Water quality and quantity

Every day each New Zealander pours and flushes around 350 litres of water into sewage systems. When we add water used for energy production our water "requirement" increases to a massive 82,000 litres per person per day.

Our waterways are under pressure from sewage and factory effluent discharges, and contamination in storm water run-offs from paddocks and roads. A recent international survey found that pollution of waterways is the main environmental problem that concerns the New Zealand community. Water shortage has also been a problem. In 1993 and 1994 Aucklanders were caught out by El Nino. In May 1994 they were told to reduce their water consumption by 25% and by June the supply lakes were down to 31% of their capacity. An emergency Bill that would have allowed water to be piped from the Waikato River without going through RMA consent processes was pipped by rainfall and withdrawn in October during its debate. The reprieve is temporary - although conservation measures have reduced water consumption, population and economic growth are expected to force consumption up. Plans are underway for a new pipeline, as by the end of the decade, demand is expected to exceed supply despite conservation measures.

Transport issues

Motor vehicles are New Zealand's main air polluters, emitting toxic gases, fine dust particles and cancer-causing chemicals. Emissions are a major problem. One study found that 40% of vehicles tested were so poorly tuned they failed emission guidelines. Carbon monoxide levels close to major vehicle corridors regularly exceed New Zealand air quality guidelines - this may have health effects on people exposed for hours at a time. Examples of problem areas include Riccarton Road in Christchurch and the Khyber Pass road in Auckland. Carbon dioxide emissions have climate change implications in terms of greenhouse gases.

Transport-use also results in stormwater run-off from roads that decreases water quality in neighbouring waterways, lost opportunities for land-use through road building, and increasing social costs through time spent travelling and the stress related to congestion. While New Zealand's population has increased by 18% since 1972, car numbers have increased by 46%, and the use of public transport has declined. The development of the land transport strategy and the land transport pricing study should lead to reforms in the transport sector. However, it is priority issue for many urban dwellers and this type of car culture is unlikely to be sustainable in the long term at this rate of increase. Low-impact methods of travel, such as walking, cycling and using public transport, are obvious alternatives to the motorcar but are not currently undertaken at levels which might improve congestion and reduce travel time, reduce air pollution and increase associated amenity values. For instance, the 1996 census noted that at a national level nearly 65% of people drove to their full-time work while under 5% used public transport.

Cumulative effects can be a major problem in urban areas. In New Zealand most of our large environmental problems are either a legacy of past changes still taking their toll, or, more pertinent for now, the combined effect of many small impacts that are not quite in balance with the environment's ability to absorb them - for instance water pollution from diffuse sources and local air pollution from motor vehicle emissions and household chimneys. A Christchurch study estimated that its smog caused largely by household fires and car emissions contributed to nearly 30 deaths a year and 80,000 lost work hours. The management can be difficult and complex due to the dynamic nature of urban communities and our lack of understanding of cumulative impacts on environmental thresholds. Thresholds are measures of environmental carrying capacity - they indicate how much human development the environment can support. Thresholds may restrict environmental viability of additional development unless technological change increases the ability of the environment to assimilate it.

Land development

One issue that is proving particularly difficult in some areas is that of the environmental and social impacts of urban development on rural land. There are a variety of issues here that relate to the availability of rural productive land (for instance, the agricultural and horticultural industries), landscapes of significant cultural and spiritual importance, conservation values such as biodiversity and indigenous habitats, and the impacts of run-off from development. A study of the Pauatahanui Inlet in Wellington, for example, showed runoff of a tonne of sediment per hectare per month: about fifteen times greater than from the neighbouring non-urbanised catchment.

One common human-based values argument that occurs is between those who wish to develop and build on areas which others regard valuable for their 'elite soils' and agricultural productive capacity. Another example is that of the risk to waahi tapu sites and mahinga kai which may be adversely affected by rural subdivisions or associated infrastructure.

Biodiversity, reported by the State of the Environment report to be at high at risk in New Zealand from past and present human activities, is threatened by insufficient habitat and fragmented habitat caused by the predominance of farms, roads and settlements. 90% of our lowland area is claimed by these human uses. Biodiversity is thus further threatened when urban development and roads encroach on remaining natural ecosystems. When averaged, our rate of urban expansion has been around 4% a year over the last 25 years. By the 1990s this was around 30,000 hectares a year increase.

Issues that relate to how and where we live; for instance the number of people in our households, the size of our sections, what we do with our land and the type of lifestyle we choose in terms of urban or rural amenities are key factors that influence this expansion.

To manage growth and the consequential pressures on the environment in urban areas we need to think about the concepts of urban sustainability and integrated environmental management. At its most simple level, urban sustainability includes ideas about maximising efficiency of resource use and minimising the impacts of waste and pollution. The OECD suggests that measures taken to improve the quality of the urban environment can generate jobs, reduce the costs and risks of future environmental problems, develop more cohesive communities and strengthen the capacity of communities and government to met the needs of the future.

We also need to acknowledge that we all have a role to play - it is not just the responsibility of central government and its agencies, or just the relevant local territorial authority. We can all make a difference - the 'think global, act local' adage is particularly pertinent in urban environments. As individuals, communities and corporate enterprises we have an obligation to think about the effects of our consumption and production patterns on the environment - for current and future generations of humans and ecological health.

Only action will make a difference in the long term. One only has to think of some overseas cities that suffer from air pollution which forces schools to close, traffic that comes to a virtual halt through gridlock and poor quality water that endangers the health of local communities. Amenity loss is a major issue in many urban environments. While some of these examples may seem extreme they are important warnings. Already some people in our urban areas suffer ill health effects from air pollution - for example, in Christchurch. However, easy solutions are not always evident. One person's solution can be another person's problem, and there are differences in the values and preferences for "urban environmental quality" in different communities

In thinking about urban sustainability we need to think about the special and varied aspirations that New Zealanders have in terms of how we choose to live. European models of intensified apartment living, while pleasing for some New Zealand communities in inner city areas, do not reflect everyone's aspirations to urban design and activity. Many of us value space in our domestic settings, and variations on the quarter-acre section are still ideals for many. Some cities in New Zealand reflect this dream to a certain extent, while the geographical terrain of others, such as Wellington, thwart it but encourage different aspirations. Questions arise of how we might enable people to pursue these preferences in a sustainable manner in the context of urban growth and expansion.

While we consider the particular types of environment we prefer in urban settings to suit our cultural perspectives, and what is sustainable in terms of the natural and physical environment, we must also consider that our population size and structure is changing - creating further demands for space and increased energy use and waste production through decreased economies of scale. Presently single person households now constitute 20% of all households. Building activity is also increasing due to economic and demographic factors. Much of the increased demand for accommodation will occur in Auckland.

The role of regulation

We cannot, and indeed do not want to, regulate for everything. Many of society's goals cannot be pursued through regulation. However, we do have a legislative framework which provides policy tools and mechanisms to promote sustainable management of natural and physical resources - the Resource Management Act 1991. The RMA's focus is to manage the adverse effects that may be generated by human resource-using activities. The legislation is designed so that communities and indivuals can pursue development and their economic and social interests, recognising the constraints posed by the natural and physical environment.

The Resource Management Act promotes an integrated approach to the management of resources. This is a recognition of an ecosystem approach - for instance we cannot effectively manage land use without thinking about the connections and the implications for water quality and quantity. Integration also occurs through the respective functions and structures of resource management agencies and the planning instruments they develop.

There has been criticism that the Act simply prevents desirable activities. However, the focus of the Act is on effects rather than activities. The legislation requires that restrictions on activities must be justified as necessary to manage the effects of those activities on the environment. The effects approach is designed to provide resource users with flexibility while ensuring that effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated.

In practice, there are environmental bottom lines, and the RMA enables these to be established. There will be times when it is not possible to design a proposed development so that those environmental bottom lines are maintained - for example, in large scale land development. An issue now actively under debate concerns the establishment of national standards for aspects of land, air and water quality.

There are some elements of environmental quality which pose real challenges in appropriate use of regulation. Amenity protection is fraught with value difficulties. The RMA defines amenities as those natural or physical qualities and characteristics of an area that contribute to people's appreciation of its pleasantness, aesthetic coherence, and cultural and recreational attributes. Amenity may thus relate to modern architecture, cultural heritage, native trees, the width of streets, cottage gardens, space, light, shopping areas, markets, recreational space, or coastal access. One person's amenity can be another's eyesore. Amenity values cannot all easily be regulated for, nor can the market always provide for them. The quality of urban environments does matter, and communities do have valid interests in heritage assets, in trees, and other aspects of "landscape": property owners also place high value on their ability to make their decisions about use and development. We have some way to go in grappling with a complex issue which does make a difference to the quality of life in urban communities.

How do communities work with the complexity of differing aspirations, ecological thresholds and urban growth? Consultation is one mechanism that articulates aspirations and goals, and is a key part of good environmental management, in particular, RMA processes. Local government needs to be creative in dealing with the effects of population change and growth, and consultation is key to understanding community needs and aspirations in the context of that growth.

One area of continual debate is the interface between community interests - for example as expressed in plans - and the interests of individuals in the use of their own property. Another is the different values that communities ascribe to particular resources. Our growing cities have diverse and evolving cultures. Different groups hold different values about where and how they live, how they work and travel and what they hold to be important spiritually and culturally.

Moving beyond regulation

What are we doing to promote urban sustainability? Good approaches at council, community and industry levels are evolving to deal with these complex and challenging issues, and these step well outside the limits of regulatory approaches. For example, the Auckland Regional Growth Forum combines input from all the local authorities in the Auckland Region to work towards a sustainable Regional Growth Strategy. The dialogues exercise now underway in Canterbury enables communities to look forward to their future needs and interests, including their aspirations for the quality of the environment, and to debate how these can be achieved.

Many of the initiatives encourage people to think about the impacts of their activities on both the natural and physical environment while enhancing the conditions they live in. At the council level, Waitakere City has begun development, with the help of the Sustainable Management Fund, of a Green Network in the city - a network of greenfingers running along streams and open space which link the urban area to the Waitakere ranges and the sea. It aims to enhance the natural environment, and people's enjoyment of it, through partnerships with business, land owners and the community.

Infrastructure development has a key influence on the impact which urban settlements have on environmental quality - for example, Wanganui's waste water scheme. The Whanganui River currently receives wastewater but has particularly high cultural and recreational values associated with it. The development and implementation of the new wastewater scheme is a successful example of the Council and community working together to achieve an environmentally and culturally acceptable outcome at an affordable price. A "split" concept enables human wastes to be treated and disposed of onto land in accordance with the spiritual and cultural values of Maori people, and the wastes from "wet" industries are kept separate, treated and disposed of through an ocean outfall. The 15 year timeframe means the scheme can be constructed largely on a "pay as you go" model with low levels of debt

There are many examples of cleaner production initiatives in industry which have an impact on environmental quality in urban areas - for example, the Environmental Hotels of Auckland (EHOA) scheme which addresses energy and water use, and waste management. Participating hotels are required to prepare an annual environmental plan which can credibly demonstrate their environmental commitment and monitor their achievements. The success of EHOA is evident from the expanding membership (now 21 hotels) and support from hospitality, tourism, environmental, local and central government organisations and by interest of hoteliers outside the Auckland region.

The link between population numbers and impact

So what is the link between population change, the growth of cities, and the quality of our environment. Does population growth, in the New Zealand context, constitute a significant problem.

There is no easy answer. Ecological carrying capacity, and environmental thresholds are relevant concepts, and they certainly suggest that there are some limits: for example, inability to absorb a continuing stream of wastes, or areas which are unsuitable for urban development.

Other people may look at the question from a relative international perspective - for instance Auckland's environment is clearly less stressed than that of Cairo's or London's. The key message here is that adverse effects on the environment stem directly from our production and consumption patterns and the distribution of our population in different geographical and ecological locations, not just the numbers of us that live here.

If we maintain the same patterns, develop on or near ecologically sensitive areas such as wetlands and continue growth in our urban areas without more care for our air emissions, water discharges and solid waste production, we will face continuing problems, and will not achieve our vision of a healthy environment which sustains nature and people. On the other hand, if we adapt our approach to waste management, address transport and air quality issues, and think carefully about the larger picture of how and where we live, then communities may be able to grow and reduce, rather than increase, their ecological footprint.

How can communities get to grips with urban growth and change issues such as those discussed today? The answer to this is difficult and depends on the commitment of local communities and government at all levels. It requires us to think carefully about the appropriate use of regulation, including the Resource Management Act, and to develop solutions - both regulatory and non regulatory - which are capable of dealing with the complexity of change in urban communities. Difficult arguments challenge us: the merits and downsides of growth containment and consolidation, for example.

Improvements in environmental management in urban areas are inextricably linked to environmental legislation and practice, social and economic policies and strategies, markets and price signals, and individual and community interests. We will need innovative and creative thinking about development, the interests of communities, and the capacity of our natural and physical environment.

We must also be careful to think about urban issues in the wider context of environmental management in New Zealand in general. While problems in urban areas are becoming acute: for example, aspects of waste management and air quality; we must also keep our attention on national environmental challenges. The report on the State of New Zealand's environment suggests that our most serious national problem, and one that is irreversible if not dealt with, is the decline of our biodiversity - our natural heritage and living wealth.

However, it is an inescapable fact that urban environmental issues do impact on the quality of life of urban dwellers and their rural neighbours - that means most of us. Solutions can only be found if individuals, businesses, community groups and government think about their individual and cumulative effects both now and in the future on the urban environment. Collaboration between groups is vital. The challenge is to is to establish how to live in ways that allow us to enjoy the environment now, while maintaining opportunities for the future.

• Impact of immigration different in different cities.

• Ethnic diversity different in different cities.

• New Zealand highly urbanised.

• Social polarisation - growing gap between have and have nots; and poor unskilled moving to rural areas.

• Local governments aren't identified by national level policies.

• Central and local government role to recognise local impacts.

• Require a local voice in immigration policy.

• New Zealand Immigration Service and the Minister of Immigration need a more transparent consultation programme.

• Links between environment, economy and society. New Zealand has a clean and green perception, how to maintain this.

• Maintaining current growth patterns means more environment stress.

• Urban infrastructure - inherited legacy from the past (roads, water, sewage etc) limits expansion.

• Managing future challenges - urban sustainability and integrated environmental management; and Resource Management Act setting bottom lines; beyond regulation-community initiatives, infrastructure and development and industry initiatives.

• Urban growth and impacts already exceed some environmental thresholds.

• Importance of role of local authority versus central government.

• Incorporate an integrated approach across environment, social and economic.

• Local government has an advocacy role in housing, crime prevention, health, education and transport.