Discussion

Block Numbers and Areas

Based on the Valuation Roll as at 16 August 2004, the total number of lifestyle blocks in New Zealand was 139,868, accounting for more than 753,000 ha. The mean block size was 5.53 ha (median = 2.7, range 0.0006 - 955.7 ha). LV blocks (without dwellings) were marginally larger than LI blocks (with dwellings), a statistically significant result. There is, of course, an issue of definition about what constitutes a lifestyle block as opposed to other types of smallholding. It seems that any large near-urban section, with or without a house, qualifies as an LI/LV block in the Valuation Roll. Large vacant tracts of land with no indication of an enterprise are likely to have a similar category code. This accounts for the huge size range of 0.0006 to 955.7 ha recorded against LI/LV blocks in the Valuation Roll. Effectively, registration within the Valuation Roll is compulsory for all rateable blocks, due to the requirement of territorial local authorities to collect rates.

In contrast some 22,687 farms in AgriBase were classified with a predominant farm type as 'LIF' (lifestyle farming). The mean size was 4.97 ha (median = 3.8, range 0.01 – 603.1 ha) (see Figure 1). However, when other livestock farm types and non-farmed properties ≤35ha were included, the figure rose to 42,094 farms. In all, AgriBase held records on 60,213 properties, either categorised as LIF or ≤35 ha, involving 539,506 ha of land.

When AgriBase was first launched in 1993, agricultural properties over 4 ha (10 acres) were targeted. Since then, this constraint has been removed and the goal is now to register all rural properties involved in some form of primary production, regardless of size. In practice, farms are registered on the basis of industry sector programmes or contact opportunities, such as through rural helicopter rescue trust mail outs. Unless they are involved in trading livestock, lifestyle block owners are often missed. The ground-truthing exercise showed that 47.4, 65 and 74.5 percent of the smallholdings were already registered in AgriBase for the three sample areas respectively. Of the 694 questionnaire survey respondents who returned AgriBase registration forms, 538 (77.5 percent) were already recorded in the database. This indicates that AgriBase holds records on between 47.4 and 77.5 percent of all smallholders.

Sales and Ownership Durations

Sales of lifestyle blocks nationwide have been increasing steadily since 1980 (see Figure 3). While some of this is undoubtedly due to re-sales of the same blocks, the total numbers of blocks have also been increasing (see Figures 7 & 8). The districts showing the most dramatic increases in absolute numbers are Far North, Franklin, Rodney, Selwyn, Waikato, Waimakariri, Western Bay of Plenty and Whangarei. Based on mean block sizes, it is estimated that an additional 6,800 lifestyle blocks are created each year nationwide, accounting for some 37,600 ha. If we assumed that this was all productive farmland, the area going into lifestyle blocks is equivalent to the loss of 247 dairy farms per year, based on a mean dairy farm size of 152ha (data extracted from AgriBase).

The absence of actual creation dates of lifestyle blocks in the data extracts from QV-Online meant that it was not possible to determine whether the mean size of lifestyle block is changing over time. However, anecdotal evidence is that block sizes are getting smaller.

A large number of blocks change hands within a relatively short period of time (see Figures 4 & 5), although a proportion of lifestyle assessments do stay in the same ownership for longer than 20 years (Figure 6). From this analysis, it appears that LV blocks are generally held by the same owners for longer periods than LI blocks.

The Ground Truthing Exercise

The ground-truthing exercise involved a sample of three readily accessible areas with high proportions of smallholdings between 0.4 ha and 35 ha, many of which were clearly lifestyle properties.

A large number of new houses were located on smallholdings within the two South Island areas, located between Rolleston and Lincoln. There was also some building activity at Newbury, just to the west of Palmerston North. It was not always possible to contact each owner directly, particularly when visits were conducted on a weekday. In these cases, names were elicited from neighbours or, failing that, the predominant land use observable over the fence was recorded.

Database Validation

LINZ title data were linked to every land parcel in the two Lincoln study areas. This was an exceptional finding, perhaps because the areas were close to Christchurch city where there had been a large number of recent subdivisions. LINZ acknowledges that complete linkage is not the case for all areas of New Zealand (B. Tercel, pers. comm., 3/02/04). This was borne out at Newbury, where only 87.4 percent of the parcels were linked. Reasons for incorrect names in the Title Estate table included recent sales not yet reflected in the dataset available to the authors, company or trust names that could not be verified, and situations where the land parcel in question had been leased to somebody else (the Title register only records the legal land owner). Other deficiencies in this register for frame development are that no postal addresses or phone numbers are included in some cases, listing of companies or trusts instead of individuals (and these are difficult to validate and utilise) and, finally, lack of any indication of land use.

Valuation Roll numbers were available for 91.6, 100 and 91.6 percent of the land parcels for Lincoln areas 1 and 2 and Newbury respectively. These were excellent match rates, utilising AgriQuality's national Valuation Roll to Land Parcel matching programme. However, the actual names and addresses (by implication) were available for only 57.5, 70 and 79.9 percent of those linked parcels. Since the privatisation of valuation services a few years ago, a number of District Councils use alternative providers to QV. Selwyn District Council is one such council. Consequently, Valuation Roll information for this District (within which the two Lincoln areas fell) is no longer kept completely up-to-date. In contrast, QV still provides rating services to the Manawatu and Palmerston North Districts, and the percentage of names still current in the Newbury area reflected this service. Notwithstanding this initiative, the usefulness of the Valuation Roll as a contact frame has been severely curtailed because of changes to the Local Government Rating Act which came into effect in April 2003. Those changes restrict Local Authorities from providing bulk names and addresses from the District rating databases to third parties.

Land-use information in the Valuation Roll only provides a rough indication of the smallholding sector. For example, lifestyle blocks usually have a category code such as 'LI' and an indication of the age and value of the dwelling, or 'LV' in the case of lifestyle blocks without a dwelling. The land use information was correct for 69, 70 and 72.1 percent of the linked records for Lincoln areas 1, 2 and Newbury, respectively. Formerly, the Lincoln study areas had a large number of apple growers who were contracted to Applefields (a Canterbury-based apple growing enterprise no longer in operation). Since the demise of that company, many of the apple orchards have reverted to non-orchard-based smallholder blocks. These transitions were not reflected in the database.

Some 47.4, 65.0 and 74.5 percent of the parcels from Lincoln areas 1, 2 and Newbury, respectively, were registered in AgriBase. Of these, the name and address details were still current for 88.9, 92.3 and 89.3 percent of cases within the three areas, and the land use information was correct for 95.6, 84.6 and 91.0 percent of the records, respectively. AgriBase is the only database that holds comprehensive information, including names and addresses, the dominant farm type (industry), as well as actual numbers of animals by species or class and, in the case of planted crops, the hectares of plantings by species or variety. AgriBase was established to assist the collection of agricultural statistics, and hence is potentially the most useful of the databases as an agriculture frame.

The ground-truthing exercise showed that currently no single database would suffice as a complete frame of smallholders. However, as the authors were able to do, combining field visits with access to all of the existing frames would allow one of the databases – say AgriBase – to become more complete. Achieving this objective is simply an issue of resourcing.

Research Objectives and Findings

The main research objectives of the postal questionnaire study were to: (1) investigate land use on smallholdings and (2) assess awareness of biosecurity and environmental issues. The survey and analysis of the results worked well to meet these objectives.

The main limitation in surveying smallholders is the accurate identification of smallholding properties. Considerable effort was expended in identifying a representative sample of smallholders. However, the present growth in the number of smallholdings means that the findings of this study will require updating in the near future.

This report provides many results, but gives limited additional analysis. There is an assessment of different types of smallholders and description of some of their characteristics, but more work remains to be done by taking the analysis a little deeper in order to explore the characteristics of smallholders in greater detail.

The survey was conducted using a comprehensive sample to ensure good representation. The 28 percent return rate, close to the usual response rate of 30 percent for rural surveys, provided a sound basis to make projections about the smallholder population from the results of the survey.

Smallholding Types

Self-classification into five smallholding types provided a useful basis for analysis. Smallholders of different types had different sizes of smallholding. Lifestylers and hobby farmers had smaller land areas, while those more seriously involved in production had larger smallholdings.

We found that farmers reside on their smallholdings longer than other types of smallholders. This suggests that types other than farmers are a new phenomenon for smallholding. Further, lifestylers had less farm experience than smallholders of other types, probably because of the newness of this group compared to farmers. Lifestylers are also less interested in production and occupy smaller areas of land.

The finding that intended length of stay varied depending upon prior length of stay can presumably be explained as follows: those who wanted to give up small holdings had already left, leaving the remainder who intended to stay. Amongst the recent smallholders there remains a group who are unsure about how long they will stay.

Income from Agricultural Production

Our land use and production figures show that many smallholders are engaged in serious production activities. Livestock, particularly sheep and beef, were prevalent. However, apart from fruit and market gardening, gross incomes from activities on smallholdings per se are generally insufficient to support smallholding households. As the off-farm income measures show, many smallholders gain substantial income from other sources. Indeed, although many smallholders identify with a rural lifestyle, it is likely that many work in urban areas while choosing to live a rural lifestyle.

For about one third of the sample, production had increased over the last two years. Future projections of production are generally optimistic, with only three percent indicating lower production and about one third indicating an increase in production. However, capital investment was generally low, perhaps reflecting the small scale production conducted on smallholdings.

Tb Registration and Meat Consumption

A sizable proportion of smallholders undertook Tb registration, although approximately 10 percent were unsure about registration. Almost all of the relevant smallholders knew to check for Tb registration at the point of sale and only slightly fewer knew to determine when a herd was last tested. Although not every smallholder knew of Tb procedures, most appeared conversant with required practice.

Almost half of the smallholders consumed meat from animals raised on their property. Of these, about one quarter had killed the animals themselves.

Some 20 percent of the smallholders did not have access to stock yards, which really are necessary for good animal management (e.g. for Tb testing and worm drenching).

Native Bush and Trees

Most smallholders indicated that they would encourage the growth of native bush. Hobby farmers were less likely to encourage native bush, possibly because of the smaller size of their properties and because they are focussed on farming activity. Farmers were also less likely to encourage growth, possibly because of their intention to use their land for production.

Most smallholders intended to plant decorative or landscape trees on their properties. Just under one third intended to plant fruit or nut species, and more than ten percent intended to plant other tree species. Overall, almost 85 percent of the smallholders intended to plant trees of some kind in the next five years, suggesting that this fraction of the rural community will contribute significantly to tree planting in the future.

Environmental Practices

We found that very few were monitoring voluntarily and engaging in environmentally friendly practices. A national survey of farmers and growers conducted in 2000 found much higher proportions undertaking these activities (Cook, Fairweather and Campbell, 2000). For example, in the 2000 survey 46 percent of farmers monitored the use of chemicals or fertilisers, whereas only 0.8 percent of smallholders did so.

Disease, Pest and Weed Management

Most smallholders indicated that they engage in disease, pest and weed management and indicated that they monitored for diseases, pests or weeds. Generally, it was considered important to control new exotic diseases pests or weeds, though most thought it unlikely that one would occur on their property. Other farmers and growers and government agencies were considered the most important source of information about new exotic diseases, pests or weeds. Other important sources included one's own experience. Only about five percent had at some time been suspicious of such an incursion, and the most common action taken on suspicion of a new exotic disease pest or weed was to contact a government agency. Most indicated that they would contact MAF, and some (8.6 percent) were able to provide the correct 0800 number. Overall, smallholders appear to engage in the management of diseases, pests and weeds and know the appropriate responses to their encountering new exotic varieties.

Identification with the Rural or Urban Environments

The enquiry into general attitudes showed that smallholders tended to give equal weight to both land use and lifestyle. Smallholders identified overwhelmingly with the rural environment, rather than urban. In general, smallholders were satisfied with their smallholding lifestyle, although approximately 16 percent were not satisfied.

Organic Production

Some 72 of 947 (7.6 percent) were engaged in some form of organic production, and just over 16 percent intended to take up organic production. In comparison, in 2000 ten percent of New Zealand farmers and growers were engaged in some form of organic production, and almost 38 percent intended to use organic methods (Cook, Fairweather and Campbell, 2000). This comparison suggests again that smallholders' attitudes towards production are different to those of other farmers and growers. Indeed, although size is most likely a caveat, most smallholders indicated that it was not important to generate full-time income from their properties. However, in general, smallholders were committed to increasing their levels of sustainability in the near future.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Smallholdings

There is a variety of reasons for, and disadvantages of, living on a smallholding. Smallholders value peace and quiet, space and privacy, and clean air. Unexpected costs and problems with local authorities were common disadvantages that possibly reflect a need for authorities to monitor carefully and create an environment that supports agricultural production, while balancing the lifestyle preferences of smallholders.

Membership of Organisations

Almost half of the smallholders gave the names of organisations and associations to which they belong. The variety of responses showed the varied interests of smallholders, and demonstrated that many smallholders are involved in rural communities through membership of rural organisations and associations.

Employment

Only a small number were engaged in paid employment on the small holding, but on average their hours approached full-time employment. Less unpaid smallholding work was undertaken than paid work, but was undertaken by about 30 percent of smallholders. Less than half of the smallholders were employed off-farm, but their income was generally high, with almost 40 percent earning more than $40,000 per annum. Finally, more than half had GST registration, almost two thirds of these registered solely for their smallholding. Our land use data shows that most smallholdings are run as a productive business, but few serve to support solely their households.

Environmental Practices and Biosecurity

Smallholders are a clearly distinguishable group in rural New Zealand. Their lifestyles usually involve producing from the land as well as gaining income from other sources. Smallholders are different from other farmers and growers and, by nature of the size of their properties, are not solely dedicated to production. However, they do intend to plant trees and are likely to add significantly to the New Zealand landscape.

At times smallholders may come into conflict with authorities over the negative impacts of agricultural production. Perhaps smallholders feel that local authorities do not act in their interests. Nevertheless, smallholders seem to be conscious of their responsibilities regarding Tb control and are aware of, and active in, addressing biosecurity issues. In these areas smallholders are responsible members of the rural community.

Contact for Enquiries

Monitoring and Evaluation
Innovation and Research Policy Directorate
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
Email: stats_info@maf.govt.nz
Phone: 64 4 894 0100

Contact this person