DOTS MARK THE SPOT

Agatha, or Auntie Agatha as she was more fondly known, came from a family of tree giants. Kauri. For a thousand years, Agatha grew up safe deep in the native rainforests of the Waitākere Ranges while distant cousins near coastlines were felled for construction and ship building. Logging was not the only threat, and yet, Agatha stood strong against the test of time. But all that has since changed. 

Today,  this mighty ancient tree , and many like it, have been brought to their knees by a threat no larger than a pinhead. The culprit? A water mould that was aptly named the kauri-killer, for the disease still has no cure. Insidious, the microbe moves by hitchhiking on the shoes of walkers. In the tread of tyres. Or between the paws of dogs. Annually, an estimated  800,000 people  visit the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park, and every visitor is a potential vector of the disease. 

Human-mediated movement of contaminated soil is the  key risk pathway  for the spread of kauri dieback; however,  some groups  are riskier than others. So to protect the kauri, targeted biosecurity strategies are necessary. And this means figuring out who are most likely to spread the disease. And where.

The breadth of actors involved in the regional parks is dizzying, but there is one unit that has been keeping rigorous tabs on the ground. Here, park rangers are the front-line workers that ensure the mix of stakeholders operating in these nature areas (e.g., recreational users, contractors, businesses etc) can only continue to do so without spreading the disease. It's no walk in the park, but in return, the rangers have become key knowledge holders of who undertakes the riskiest activities in these areas, and where these activities pose the greatest threat to kauri.

So over the course of almost a year, researchers from the University of Auckland, University of Otago, and Cardiff University reached out to park rangers from various regional parks in Auckland and Bay of Plenty. Engagement with these individuals were carried out via four focus-group workshops — one for each regional park of interest. These four parks were besieged by the same biosecurity risks; however, one was living with existing infestation while the other three had not shown any signs of kauri dieback disease. 

During each workshop, park rangers were encouraged to share their knowledge through two main activities: a) guided brainstorming, and b) participatory mapping. In the long run, the researchers hoped this study can get the ball rolling on the conversation about how people use parks, and its associated risks.

The high-risk user distribution maps that were developed during the workshops were digitized, and through this approach, the researchers learned that the way these groups moved and used the kauri forests were unexpectedly different. 

The maps also demonstrated how high-risk user groups can differ distinctly between parks. For example, the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park and the Tāwharanui Regional Park (maps below as reference) shared only one high-risk user group.

Thanks to the park rangers' nuanced and acute understanding of the forests and its users, the dialogue from this focus-group approach yielded valuable information for each park of interest; these included:

• Who the riskiest users were. 
• Where the riskiest users operated.
• The locations where these activities were most likely to negatively impact kauri.

Ironically, the special features of the mapping activity that provided the rationale for its selection also presented certain restrictions on its usage. But as with any scientific technique, it is necessary to consider the limitations into in order to use the method reliably. Arguably, one of the main roadblocks for using bingo dabbers to define high-risk user distribution was the availability of colours. In fact, this was a concern that park rangers themselves highlighted. For example, there can be as many as twenty user groups carrying out different activities in the park. So, how was six colours enough to visualize everything on the ground?

Although rich, thick description of the phenomenon was desired, there was, unfortunately, a lack of dabbers with distinct pigments — beyond six colours, the researchers ran the risk of using colours that were too similar. Correspondingly, there was also a limit to how many dots could fit into a single grid on the printed maps, especially at locations with high forest user traffic.

To compensate, the researchers devised a 10-point risk score (picture collage below as reference). During the brainstorming session with the park rangers, an aggregate was meticulously assigned to each user group. In this instance, the drawback fostered an opportunity for deeper conversations between the researchers and rangers. 

Stoked by the overall process, ideas and creative solutions naturally ensued. For example (picture collage below as reference), to expand the information on the map surface for exceptionally high-risk areas, a black Sharpie was used to draw symbols, such as circles and/or crosses, on top of the coloured dots. Sticky notes also came in handy at capturing information on the occasions when the dabbers were inadequate.

This project of engaging with park rangers was the first of its kind to use bingo dabbers as means of visualisation in a participatory mapping method. 

Overall, the workshops had expanded the researchers' expectations and norms of forest user info. In the next step of the project, the researchers will select a number of groups that have been considered as high risk across the parks of interest. Thus far, the researchers have decided upon five groups: 

1. Trail runners / Mountain bikers
2. Volunteers
3. Hunters
4. Local boundary sharers
5. Dog walkers 

The principal idea is to reach out and engage with these forest user groups to co-design fitting biosecurity strategies, and thus enable them to make tangible positive change for themselves and the forests. At the end of the day, environmental communication is an inevitable aspect of kauri dieback management.