Before him lay original nature in her wild but sublime beauty. Behind him he leaves a desert, a deformed and ruined land; for childish desire of destruction, or thoughtless squandering of vegetable treasures, have destroyed the character of nature; and man himself flies terrified from the arena of his actions, leaving the impoverished earth to barbarous races or animals, so long as yet another spot in virgin beauty smiles before him. Here again, in selfish pursuit of profit, consciously or unconsciously, he begins anew the work of destruction.[1]
S. Ravi Rajan
-
In the nineteenth century, the settling and unsettling of Australia and New Zealand (NZ) was partly attributable to British environmental exploitation. The British brought specific ideas and expectations of Oceania and nature to the Pacific which shaped their actions. Generally, British colonists took a destructive, utilitarian approach towards the environments of Australia and NZ. This essay will examine some aspects of British culture which shaped this attitude. In order to understand the extent to which this destructive mind-set influenced the British settlers' treatment and use of natural resources in Australia and NZ in the nineteenth century, it is necessary to examine the degree of environmental damage and change they permitted, with particular reference to whaling, gold mining, and deforestation.[2]
-
The first section of this essay focuses on the argument that the underlying causes of environmental problems are people's attitudes towards and perceptions of nature, specifically, the common notion of it as a resource.[3] In the nineteenth century, British immigrants maintained such a concept of Australia and NZ, seeing the 'new' countries as spaces waiting to be transformed and their resources as waiting to be utilised. Obviously, human survival depends upon the use of natural resources, but also on their conservation. Before the arrival of Europeans, both Aborigines and Māori exploited the environment, but the large number of British settlers, compared with indigenous numbers, meant that British exploitation was far more disturbing, widespread, and severe. Overall, the British had little respect for the environment or concern for its future. Environmentalism was often seen by white settler society within a gendered paradigm. In nineteenth century literature, women were described as being distressed at the sight of ecological destruction, whereas men relished such a masculine task as expanding the Empire.[4] In reality, women too were often excited and encouraging of environmental alterations, undoubtedly because of the opportunities that it would bring. For instance, Lady Barker of Canterbury wrote in 1870 that she liked 'burning the hill-sides better than the swamps—you get a more satisfactory blaze with less trouble.'[5] This appears to reveal that gender was not a significant factor in determining environmental destruction. British ignorance is commonly offered as an explanation and justification for the settler' management of the Australian and NZ environments, however, there were some who recognised the need for limitation and the unsustainability of being future eaters. For instance, in 1848, colonist Henry Haygarth revealed his discomfort with the destruction of Australia's environment, noting how '"Anglo-Saxon energy at last triumphs over every obstacle. But Nature, as if offended, withdraws half her beauty from the land."'[6] Such environmental unease complicates the dominant image of nineteenth century Europeans as 'wholesale environmental despoilers.'[7] Nevertheless, despite the fact that colonists may not have had sufficient scientific knowledge to completely understand ecological systems, it seems unlikely that they would not have previously encountered environmental devastation at their own hands in Britain and in other colonies, and thus have acquired some idea as to the negative consequences of ecological abuse. Therefore, the majority of colonists were not concerned with conservation, despite some apprehension and knowledge about the damage that exploitation wrought, there must have been more compelling motivations to exploit nature. For this reason, it is crucial to consider those aspects of British culture which permitted the Australian and NZ colonists to justify their exploitation of the environment in the nineteenth century in order to understand how they could have allowed for such extensive devastation. One must consider the traditions people have inherited so as to better understand why they act as they do. [8]
-
The first and possibly most influential aspect of British culture which I will consider is Christianity, arguably the most environmentally harmful religion on account of the way in which it conceives the human relationship with nature.[9] Christianity provided Britons with concepts and ethics about nature which allowed them to treat the environment in a utilitarian manner. According to the Bible, God created the earth for man and therefore, man has dominion over everything. Christians often interpreted this as man's unrestricted ability to do as he pleases with regard to the earth's resources because they were created for the sole purpose of being used. According to Edward Wilson, a leader of the acclimatization movement in Victoria during the nineteenth century,
This is the proper interpretation of the original command to man; "Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."[10]
-
Not only did dominion theology legitimise utilising the environment but also 'improving' (or changing) it as land development was considered to be a Christian and moral duty of the settlers. God had shaped the world but, as New South Wales judge Barron Field explained in 1825, He had left to man
The task of draining his own habitation, and the fields which are to support him, because this is a task not beyond his powers ... It is therefore the business of man to open up these mines of hoarded wealth and to thank the Author of all good, who has husbanded them for his use, and left them as rightful heritage for those of after days.[11]
-
To advance and exploit the resources of apparently untouched, wasted lands, not only executed God's will, but ennobled the land by imposing a redemptive order upon it.[12] It is possible that the Australian and NZ settlers were genuine in their desire to improve the land, but improvement did not carry the same meaning as it does in our present. Improvement entailed the removal and modification of native trees, animals and landscapes so as to create an image of Britain and fulfil the yeoman ideal; it did not involve caring for nature. In contrast, however, there were some colonists who referred to biblical images and Christian ethics to censure environmental degradation and encourage a conservationist conscience.[13] These colonists believed they had an accountability to make the natural world more abundant and bountiful than it had been.[14] For instance, W. T. L. Travers declared that civilised colonists had to acknowledge the '"obligation" God had placed on them as "intelligent and responsible" beings to take care of the natural world even while transforming it.'[15] Nonetheless, rather than viewing God's creation as deserving of respect, admiration, and care, most colonists saw it as a resource to be exploited, most likely because it was more beneficial to abuse natural resources. European society may have been becoming more secular in the nineteenth century, but religious ideas about human domination were ingrained in the minds of Australian and NZ colonists. In the nineteenth century, Christianity provided British colonists with justification for their destruction and exploitation of the environment as this 'anthropocentric ethic of human dominance'[16] over nature produced a disposition which allowed man to deem himself separate from and superior to all else.
-
Secondly, the capitalist mentality of British colonists further influenced their environmental attitude in Australia and NZ in the nineteenth century. Capitalism is a system driven by the doctrine of progress, growth, and improvement and such expansion was expected to be achieved through the exploitation of nature. When Australia and NZ were discovered, these countries, with their vast, mostly untapped natural resources, provided Britons with the opportunity to achieve that which Western society values most highly: wealth. For example, of NZ, colonist Edward Wakefield wrote that 'the physical circumstances of these islands—their relative position, their soil, climate, harbours, rivers, and valuable natural productions—all invite Englishmen to settle there.'[17] Similarly, some considered that there was '"a numerous class of persons in England whose circumstances in life would be materially bettered by migrating to ... one of the Australian colonies."'[18] The settlers intended to change and use the environment so that they could prosper. Initially, many of those who immigrated to Australia simply intended to make money quickly, mainly through farming, and then return to Britain.[19] Hence, the land was ravaged. Australia was not considered to be their home and so there was no attachment and as they would be returning to Britain, these colonists would not have to contend with the effects that their treatment of the environment would later bring. One unsuccessful farmer, Samuel Crab, was extremely concerned about the way in which Australian farmers were treating the land, mentioning that some of them
Didn't even know what lying in fallow meant. He also told me that he had grown wheat in the same field for seven years with not a handful of manure. I ask you, would any Christian farmer treat his land in such a cruel fashion? Why, it's against nature.[20]
-
This remark reveals that many farmers were thoughtless when it came to the environment and were not concerned about the damage they were doing because their primary concern was money.[21] In saying this, the environment was not exploited solely out of greed, but also as a result of need. However, greed was always a factor.[22] Some may have resented environmental misuse, but no one questioned the necessity of improvement, development, or progress.[23] This mentality influenced the settlers' attitude towards the Australian and NZ environments in the nineteenth century in that it permitted them to consider nature simply as a tool for economic success.
-
Contempt for all that was not British was another aspect of British culture which shaped the Australian and NZ settler's environmental attitude. The British believed that their animals, plants, and landscapes were the most highly evolved, and therefore, were the most beautiful, valuable, and worthy of respect. Naturally, that which was not British was not seen as beautiful or of any intrinsic value. There was a general postulation that the flora and fauna of Australia and NZ were primeval and inferior to the more modern influx from Britain, and consequently, were destined to die in the face of superior contenders. This contempt that colonists felt can be witnessed through their perceptions of Australia and NZ. Considering that the British came from a relatively wet, green, cold country, it is not surprising that, in general, the ethnocentric colonists found Australia to be inauspicious and disagreeable. While the wide brown land of Australia was seen to possess some potential for economic exploitation, its harsh landscape with its ungainly flora and fauna were often viewed as second rate as 'the characteristic and unique formation of the country set at naught all the approved deductions and theories of the scientific world.'[24] Because of such differences, most British settlers saw the Australian environment as unattractive and worthless and treated it accordingly.[25] In NZ, the situation was different because NZ's environment was perceived to be closer to Britain's than was Australia's, as writer and traveller Anthony Trollope explained in 1873:
In New Zealand everything is English. The scenery, the colour and general appearance of the waters, and the shape of the hills, are altogether un-Australian, and very like to that with which we are familiar in the west of Ireland and the highlands of Scotland.[26]
-
Therefore, the British looked more favourably upon the NZ environment because of its relative and perceived familiarity. They were more used to dealing with such an environment and saw its potential for British beauty; NZ's land and weather, while not without problems, offered better possibility for European agriculture, grazing, and settlement.[27] However, this more positive perception was no less threatening to NZ's environment as the British saw greater opportunity to completely transform the country into a replica of Britain (because NZ was ultimately still viewed as inferior as it was not British). As stated by Edward Wilson, colonists
Should never rest until every country on earth is duly furnished with every good thing which that country is capable of maintaining...In setting about so serious a task as that of remodelling the arrangement of Nature herself, we ought, I think, to assert our right to destroy some things for the purpose of smoothing the path of more valuable things.[28]
-
This perceived ugliness of the Australian environment and the familiarity of the NZ environment, resulted in differing views of the two countries' worth, yet produced the same destructive response, but for different reasons. In Australia, everything was considered to be bleak and therefore was destroyed out of abhorrence, whereas in NZ, colonists could see its potential as a British reproduction which created a greater desire for ecological imperialism. Because of their contempt, British colonists perceived the Australian and NZ environments as inferior and therefore treated them as such in the nineteenth century.
-
The British settlers' belief in their god-given right to exploit and improve nature, their desire for wealth, and their belief in the inferiority of the environments of Australia and NZ offers some indication as to why most colonists treated the environments in such a thoughtless and utilitarian manner. In order to understand the extent to which this mind-set influenced the settlers' treatment and use of natural resources, it is necessary to explore some of the ecological modification that the settlers instigated in the nineteenth century.
-
The damage that was done to the whale populations around Australia and NZ due to the whale oil trade in the nineteenth century was permitted by the British colonists because of their environmental attitude. Whaling was an excessive extractive industry and consequently, had devastating effects on whale populations.[29] Whalers from the northern seas, who had exhausted the whale populations there, flocked to the south with the establishment of Australian and NZ colonies.[30] In NZ, before European colonisation, Māori had largely avoided whaling because of the lack of appropriate technology but did slaughter those which came into shallow bays or washed up on the shore.[31] In 1804, the Australian whale industry commenced but with the slaughter of females at the time of calving, it is not difficult to understand why Sydney's industry was not profitable for long. In NZ, European whaling began in 1792. In 1827, NZ right whales were discovered in Tory strait and shore whaling was the method used to kill these whales. This technique was a particular threat to right whales as the species mated and gave birth in shallow waters. The efficiency of these bay whalers meant that right whale populations were virtually exhausted in a mere 15 years.[32] By the mid-1840s, NZ's bay whaling industry collapsed due to a massive right whale population decline and 30 years later, the sperm whaling industry was similarly brought to a standstill. However it seems that colonists had not learnt their lesson, as in 1890, with the development of a new whaling method, whalers began hunting humpback whales.[33] In the nineteenth century, settlers were largely inconsiderate of the impact that extensive hunting had, and despite knowing from recent experience the effects of such exploitation, the greed of Australian and NZ settlers drove southern whales into commercial, and almost complete extinction. Therefore, the Australian and NZ settlers' attitude towards the environment allowed them to create an extractive industry in which the whales' welfare and survival came second to peoples' desire for immediate, abundant wealth because humans were above and separate to nature, because whales were insignificant and simply tools for gaining prosperity.
-
The environmental destruction in Australia and NZ caused by gold mining in the nineteenth century is another example of the British attitude towards the environment. New South Wales (NSW) and Victoria became gold mining areas in 1851, while Western Australia's turn came in 1886. In NZ, gold mining began in 1852 when gold was discovered in the rivers and streams of the Coromandel Peninsula, however, the first large-scale rush took place in Otago in 1861.[34] Gold mining had severe environmental consequences as miners were largely indifferent to the effects of their actions, leaving trails of devastation behind them when moving from place to place, and denied both actual responsibility and legal liability for their activities.[35] Trees were cut down to clear land for mines, to build huts, and for fire wood. Miners created such an insatiable demand for wood that the land surrounding mining towns was usually levelled bare. In Australia Felix, Henry Handel Richardson described the effects of mining in Ballarat, saying that 'no patch of green offered rest to the eye; not a tree, hardly a stunted bush had been left standing.'[36] Gold mining sites were swiftly transformed into wastelands as foliage was removed, the soil turned over, and shafts dug. Streams and rivers which were once clear and clean became murky and polluted through the process of mining, such as the Goulburn River in Victoria which became milky with sediment due to gold mining in 1860.[37] Initially, miners were content with alluvial mining but as numbers increased and gold became scarce, the miners resorted to more drastic measures in order to find gold such as hydraulic sluicing systems which destroyed entire hillsides.[38] It was not long before anxiety arose over the discharge of mining debris into rivers which elevated river beds and increased susceptibility to flooding.[39] However, this was only considered a cause for concern because of the economic impact it would have, as most distress came from those farmers whose lands and rivers were threatened. Mining activities challenged riparian laws and the NZ government spent many years attempting to find a balance between the miners' and the farmers' rights. In 1875, the NZ government passed the Gold Fields Amendments Act which held that parliament could proclaim any waterway to be a sludge channel. This demonstrates society's lack of concern for environmental destruction so long as gold mining could finance the expansion of world trade, sustain the growth of metropolitan industry and commerce, and stimulate the settlement and development of the colonial periphery.[40] The effects of gold mining in the nineteenth century provide evidence of an attitude in colonial Australian and NZ society that allowed for the destruction of the environment.
-
Another environmentally destructive endeavour which the British attitude permitted in Australia and NZ in the nineteenth century was deforestation. Progress was measured by the elimination of primordial forests and its replacement with the ordered garden, a sign of civility and social standing. Therefore, colonists considered trees as barriers which inhibited progress, that is, forests prevented the construction of civilised European spaces and places. During the gold rushes, Australia and NZ had experienced significant population growth, and following the rushes, these people requirement employment. The solution was to give them land, land which needed to be improved, that is, cleared. In NSW in 1847, Commissioner Fry notified an official inquiry that the Big Scrub in the Richmond river cedar country was so densely forested that it would take five to six centuries to clear. However, selectors made easy work of the forest, clearing it in 30 years, which shows the intensity of white desire.[41] Deforestation provided one of the major traces of environmental change in NZ. In 1900, forest covered approximately twenty-five per cent of NZ, a reduction of twenty-five per cent since 1840.[42] Timber was an integral part of the Australian and NZ economies but often the best forests were deliberately destroyed by fire. In the Puhipuhi forest, almost 12,000 acres of kauri forest was burnt in the 1880s.[43] Traveller and writer J. A. Froude expressed his sadness at such waste in 1886 saying that many trees in NZ were left
Not even to rot, for they had set them on fire where they could, and the flames spreading to the forests had seized the trees which were nearest, and there they were standing scorched, blackened, and leafless. We went through absolutely twenty miles of this ... It was really painful to look at.[44]
-
Colonists considered trees so innumerable that they could not possibly utilise all of them and thus timber was expendable. This perceived inexhaustibility allowed colonists to ignore concerns about the conservation of forests, and no doubt, about other resources.[45] The destruction of forests caused soil erosion, nutrient loss, and the loss of biodiversity but the most immediate effect of clearing land was the loss of wild life habitat, which often leads to the extinction of animal species. By the 1840s, there was growing concern for the damage that deforestation was causing and some colonists considered it their responsibility to prevent land becoming dissipated.[46] However, their efforts were constantly hampered by the priority given to agricultural development.[47] The trees of Australia and NZ were cleared with very little concern for the impact such actions would have because the settlers' ecological attitude allowed them to see the trees as an impediment to their Godly orders, a source of wealth, and as a barrier to social progress rather than as beneficial components of the environment.
-
In conclusion, there were several aspects of British culture which shaped the Australian and NZ settlers' careless, utilitarian environmental attitude. Christianity, capitalism, and British contempt allowed settlers to alter the environment through plunder and modification. Most colonists were able to ignore the implications of their actions because they believed in their God-given right to use the earth's resources and 'improve' the environment, because they viewed nature as a tool for economic success, and because they disrespected all that was not British. Colonists decimated whale populations, severely damaged water sources and land through gold mining, and cleared an immense amount of forested land in the nineteenth century because, ultimately, nature was insignificant and a mere commodity.[48] Although such patterns of belief were not all-inclusive, they were extensive enough to have taken centre stage in the transformation of the Australian and NZ environments.
Endnotes
[1] S. Ravi Rajan, 'A Contract with Nature', in Modernizing Nature: Forestry and Imperial Eco-Development, 1800–1950 (Cary: Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2006), p. 29.
[2] Such undertakings were important tools of imperialism as they imposed Europeanised ideas about and forms of nature, land, and labour upon Australia and NZ which essentially erased the signs of an 'uncivilised' past in an attempt to legitimise the British claim to sovereignty.
[3] Arthur and Jeanette Conacher, Rural Land Degradation in Australia (Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1995), p. 104.
[4] Julian Kuzma, 'New Zealand Landscape and Literature, 1890–1925', Environment and History, 9, 4 (November 2003), p. 458.
[5] Lady Mary Ann Barker, Station Life in New Zealand (London: Macmillan, 1870), pp. 144–5, cited in Don Garden, Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific: An Environmental History (Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, Inc., 2005), p. 266.
[6] Henry Haygarth, Recollections of Bush Life in Australia during a Residence of Eight Years in the Interior (London: Murray, 1845), pp. 120–1, cited in Garden, p. 260–1.
[7] James Beattie, 'Environmental Anxiety in New Zealand, 1840–1941: Climate Change, Soil Erosion, Sand Drift, Flooding and Forest Conservation', Environment and History, 9, 4 (November 2003), p. 388.
[8] Kevin Frawley, 'Evolving Visions: Environmental Management and Nature Conservation in Australia,' in Australian Environmental History: Essays and Cases, ed. by Stephen Dovers (Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1994), p. 75.
[9] Frawley, p. 67.
[10] Edward Wilson, Acclimatisation: Read before the Royal Colonial Institute (London: Unwin Brothers, 1875), pp. 2–3, cited in Garden, p. 267.
[11] Barron Field, 'On the Rivers of New South Wales', in Geographical Memoirs of New South Wales (London: Thomas Davidson, 1825), pp. 302–3, cited in Garden, p. 257.
[12] Garden, p. 68.
[13] James Beattie and John Stenhouse, 'Empire, Environment and Religion: God and the Natural World in Nineteenth Century New Zealand', Environment and History, 13, 4 (November 2007), p. 415.
[14] Beattie and Stenhouse, pp. 341–2.
[15] Beattie and Stenhouse, pp 433–4.
[16] Conacher, p. 113.
[17] Edward Gibbon Wakefield, The British colonization of New Zealand: being an account of the principles, objects, and plans of the New Zealand Association: together with particulars concerning the position, extent, soil and climate, natural productions, and native inhabitants of New Zealand (London: John W. Parker, 1837), p. 43.
[18] Letter of Howard to G. F. Angus, 25 January 1842, from Angus Papers, cited in Selected Documents in Australian History 1788–1850, ed. by C.M.H. Clark, 2 volumes (Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1950),1, p. 213.
[19] Geoffrey Bolton, Spoils and Spoilers: A History of Australians shaping their environment, 2nd edition, ed. by Ann Curthoys (Sydney: Allen and Unwin Pty, Ltd., 1992), p. 57.
[20] William Thornley, The Adventures of an Immigrant in Van Diemen's Land, ed. by J. S. Mills (Hong Kong: Rigby Limited, 1973), p. 16.
[21] Such carelessness was also exacerbated by many Australian farmers having had no previous farming experience.
[22] As previously mentioned, settlers did use natural resources to survive, to acquire money to live, to eat, and to shelter themselves. But, in saying this, greed was an ever present factor. For instance, trees were felled to build houses, fences, railway tracks, and so on. However, farmers in Australia and NZ often burnt the trees which covered their land as it was a faster, more efficient means of removal and therefore, they could begin to farm their land a lot quicker. This meant that in order to supply the ever-growing demand for timber, more land had to be cleared because of the farmers' need and greed.
[23] Beattie and Stenhouse, p. 432.
[24] Ernest Favenc (ed.), The History of Australian Exploration from 1788 to1888, Compiled from State Documents, Private Papers and the Most Authentic Sources of Information, Issued Under the Auspices of the Governments of The Australian Colonies (Sydney: Turner and Henderson, 1888), p. 35.
[25] Had, for example, the Spanish settled in Australia, they would have looked upon the Australian environment more favourably because they were used to a dry, hot country. Therefore, their treatment of the environment may have been less ruthless because the Spanish were not only more knowledgeable about how to manage such an environment but because it was not displeasing or disappointing. [George Seddon, 'The Evolution of Perceptual Attitudes', in Man and Landscape in Australia: Towards an Ecological Vision, ed. by George Seddon and Mari Davis (Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1976), p. 11.]
[26] Anthony Trollope, Australia and New Zealand, 2 volumes (Melbourne: George Robertson, 1873), 2, pp. 324, cited in Garden, p. 270.
[27] Garden, p. 165.
[28] Wilson, pp. 19–20, cited in Garden, p. 268.
[29] Extractive industries refer to those which remove resources from the environment as quickly as possible without concern for the future of those resources.
[30] The extensive slaughter of whales was also brought about due to the involvement of whalers outside the Australian and NZ colonies, but for the sake of simplicity, it has been assumed that these whalers also held a similar attitude towards the whales or else such treatment of the mammals would not have occurred. The Australian and NZ settlers may not have been the only ones involved in the slaughter of whales but they still allowed for such devastation to occur as there was no legislation in place to prevent others from exploiting the whales.
[31] With the European's arrival, Māori quickly took to whaling, joining European whaling fleets and sometimes had their own fleets.
[32] Richard Tong and Geoffrey Cox, Clean and Green? The New Zealand Environment (Auckland: David Bateman Ltd., 2000), p. 39.
[33] What is even more disappointing, however, is that whaling continued well into the twentieth century, and it was not until 1945 that right whales gained international protection and in the 1960s, the blue whales and humpbacks finally gained protection (but only once they had become uneconomical industries).
[34] Terry Hearn, 'Mining the Quarry', in Environmental Histories of New Zealand, ed. by Eric Pawson and Tom Brookling (Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 84.
[35] Hearn, p. 86.
[36] Henry Handel Richardson, Australia Felix (Melbourne: Penguin Books Australia, 1917), p. 5, cited in Ann Young, Environmental Change in Australia since 1788, 2nd edition (Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 95.
[37] Bolton, p. 69.
[38] In NZ, when gold became scarcer still the Dunedin chamber of Commerce brought in Chinese miners as cheap labour in order to maintain the prosperity of the town. [Tong and Cox, p. 62.]
[39] Hearn, p. 86.
[40] Hearn, p. 85.
[41] Bolton, p. 40.
[42] Paul Star, 'New Zealand Environmental History: A Question of Attitudes', Environment and History, 9, 4 (November 2003), p. 468.
[43] Graeme Wynn, 'Destruction under the Guise of Improvement? The Forest, 1840–1920', in Environmental Histories of New Zealand, p. 111.
[44] J. A. Froude, Oceana: Travellers' Tales of Early Australia and New Zealand (London: Longmans, Greens, and Co., 1886), pp. 133–4, cited in Garden, p. 274.
[45] Conacher, p. 122.
[46] Beattie, p. 382.
[47] Beattie, p. 380.
[48] Jim McAloon, 'Resource Frontiers, Environment, and Settler Capitalism', in Environmental Histories of New Zealand, ed. by Eric Pawson and Tom Brookling (Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 55.
Bibliography
Contemporary Sources
Barker, Lady Mary Ann, Station Life in New Zealand (London: Macmillan, 1870), pp. 144–5, cited in Garden, Don, Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific: An Environmental History (Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, Inc., 2005) p. 266.
Clark, C. M. H. (ed.), Selected Documents in Australian History 1788–1850, 2 volumes (Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1950), vol. 1.
Favenc, Ernest (ed.), The History of Australian Exploration from 1788 to1888, Compiled from State Documents, Private Papers and the Most Authentic Sources of Information, Issued Under the Auspices of the Governments of The Australian Colonies (Sydney: Turner and Henderson, 1888).
Field, Barron, 'On the Rivers of New South Wales', in Geographical Memoirs of New South Wales (London: Thomas Davidson, 1825), pp. 302–3, cited in Garden, Don, Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific: An Environmental History (Santa Barbra: ABC-CLIO, Inc, 2005), p. 257.
Froude, J. A., Oceana: Travellers' Tales of Early Australia and New Zealand (London: Longmans, Greens, and Co., 1886), pp. 133–4, cited in Garden, Don, Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific: An Environmental History (Santa Barbra: ABC-CLIO, Inc, 2005), p. 274.
Letter of Howard to G. F. Angus, 25 January 1842, from Angus Papers, cited in Selected Documents in Australian History 1788–1850, ed. by C.M.H. Clark, 2 volumes (Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1950),1, p. 213.
Richardson, H. H., Australia Felix (Melbourne: Penguin Books Australia, 1917), p. 5, cited in Young, Ann, Environmental Change in Australia since 1788, 2nd ed. (Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 95.
Thornley, William, The Adventures of an Emigrant in Van Diemen's Land, ed. by. J. S. Mills (Hong Kong: Rigby Limited, 1973).
Trollope, Anthony, Australia and New Zealand, 2 volumes (Melbourne: George Robertson, 1873), 2, pp. 324, cited in Garden, Don, Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific: An Environmental History (Santa Barbra: ABC-CLIO, Inc, 2005), p. 270.
Wakefield, Edward Gibbon, The British Colonization of New Zealand: being an account of the principles, objects, and plans of the New Zealand Association: together with particulars concerning the position, extent, soil and climate, natural productions, and native inhabitants of New Zealand (London: John W. Parker, 1837).
Wilson, Edward, Acclimatisation: Read before the Royal Colonial Institute (London: Unwin Brothers, 1875), pp. 2–3, cited in Garden, Don, Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific: An Environmental History (Santa Barbra: ABC-CLIO, Inc, 2005), p. 267.
Secondary Sources
Beattie, James, 'Environmental Anxiety in New Zealand, 1840–1941: Climate Change, Soil Erosion, Sand Drift, Flooding and Forest Conservation', Environment and History, 9, 4 (November 2003), pp. 379–92.
________, and John Stenhouse, 'Empire, Environment and Religion: God and the Natural World in Nineteenth-Century New Zealand', Environment and History, 13, 4 (November 2007), pp. 413–46.
Bolton, Geoffrey, Spoils and Spoilers: A History of Australians Shaping Their Environment, ed. by Anna Curthoys, 2nd edition (Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 1992).
Conacher, Arthur and Jeanette, Rural Land Degradation in Australia (Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1995).
Cullum, Keith R., 'The New Zealand Sense of Wilderness: A Study of Attitudes and Response to the New Zealand Landscape' (unpublished MA thesis, University of Auckland, 1978).
Frawley, Kevin, 'Evolving Visions: Environmental Management and Nature Conservation in Australia', in Australian Environmental History: Essays and Cases, ed. by Stephen Dovers (Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1994), pp. 55–78.
Garden, Don, Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific: An Environmental History (Santa Barbra: ABC-CLIO, Inc, 2005).
Hearn, Terry, 'Mining the Quarry', in Environmental Histories of New Zealand, ed. by Eric Pawson and Tom Brookling (Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 84–99.
Heathcote, R. L., 'Early European Perception of the Australian Landscape: the First Hundred Years', in Man and Landscape in Australia: Towards and Ecological Vision, ed. by George Seddon and Mari Davis (Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1976), pp. 29–46.
Kuzma, Julian, 'New Zealand Landscape and Literature, 1890-1925', Environment and History, 9, 4 (November 2003), pp. 451–461.
McAloon, Jim, 'Resource Frontiers, Environment, and Settler Capitalism', in Environmental Histories of New Zealand, ed. by Eric Pawson and Tom Brookling (Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 52–66.
Rajan, S. Ravi, 'A Contract with Nature', in Modernizing Nature: Forestry and Imperial Eco-Development, 1800–1950 (Cary: Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2006), pp. 21–54.
Seddon, George, 'The Evolution of Perceptual Attitudes', in Man and Landscape in Australia: Towards and Ecological Vision, ed. George Seddon and Mari Davis (Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1976), pp. 9–17.
Star, Paul, 'New Zealand Environmental History: A Question of Attitudes', Environment and History, 9, 4 (November 2003), pp. 463–475.
Tong, Richard, and Geoffrey Cox, Clean and Green? The New Zealand Environment (Auckland: David Bateman Ltd., 2000).
Wynn, Graeme, 'Destruction under the Guise of Improvement? The Forest, 1840–1920', in Environmental Histories of New Zealand, ed. by Eric Pawson and Tom Brookling (Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 100–116.
Young, Ann, Environmental Change in Australia since 1788, 2nd ed. (Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 2000).
|
