Social SciencesFreePrintable

Government Environmental Policies

A free social sciences worksheet ready for your classroom. Open in Kuraplan to grab the print-ready PDF, customize it for your students, or generate a fresh version in seconds.

Download now

Name:Date:

Government Environmental Policies

Read the short briefing, then take on the role of a community adviser. Use evidence from the briefing and explain whose views or needs matter when governments make environmental decisions.

Briefing: A decision for the Kōwhai Estuary

Kōwhai Estuary is a fictional place in Aotearoa New Zealand. It is a tidal wetland where native birds feed and young fish shelter. The nearby town has a rubbish problem: plastic and food packaging sometimes wash into the water. A small number of businesses also want more space for parking and visitor facilities. The national government makes laws and sets broad environmental goals. Local councils make many local planning and water-management decisions under national laws. The Resource Management Act 1991 has been a key law for managing the effects of people’s activities on the environment. New Zealand is replacing it with new resource-management laws, so the rules and responsibilities are changing. A council is considering three options for the estuary. Option A: keep current rules and run community clean-ups. Option B: limit new building close to the wetland, provide bins, and monitor water quality. Option C: allow a new visitor car park beside the wetland, but require the developer to fund planting and rubbish collection. People who may be affected include mana whenua, local residents, visitors, businesses, wildlife groups, and future generations. Mana whenua are tangata whenua with a relationship and responsibilities connected to their rohe. Good public decision-making includes listening to affected communities, considering evidence, and explaining how a decision was reached.

Investigate the policy choices

Use the briefing and options table to answer the questions. There is not always one perfect policy: support your judgement with reasons.

Option A Current rules + community clean-ups Possible benefit: quick, community-led action. Possible concern: pollution may continue between clean-ups.

Option B Restrict building near wetland + bins + water monitoring Possible benefit: prevents some impacts and gathers evidence. Possible concern: costs money and may limit development.

Option C New car park + developer-funded planting and rubbish collection Possible benefit: visitor facilities and funded restoration. Possible concern: construction beside the wetland may still disturb habitat.

1.Which option most directly aims to prevent new building from affecting the wetland? Choose one and give a reason from the briefing.

Option A
Option B
Option C
All three equally

2.Complete the roles: The national government makes and sets broad environmental goals; the local council makes many planning decisions.

3.True or false? The briefing says the Resource Management Act 1991 is a key law, and that New Zealand is replacing it with new resource-management laws.

TrueFalse

4.Match each group with a way it could be affected by the council’s decision.

Mana whenua
Nearby businesses
Wildlife groups
Future generations

May gain visitors or face limits on development
Will inherit the results of today’s decisions
Their relationship and responsibilities connected to the rohe should be considered
May be concerned about habitat and water quality

5.Choose one option. Give one likely benefit and one possible drawback. Use details from the briefing or table.

6.A visitor says, “The car park is useful, so the council should approve it without asking anyone else.” Give two reasons why this is not enough for a fair, well-informed decision.

7.The council has funding for only one first step: install bins, test water quality, or plant wetland grasses. Which would you recommend first, and what evidence would help you check whether it worked?

8.Write a short recommendation to the council: choose A, B, or C, name one group whose views should be heard, and explain how the policy could protect the estuary. Include one way to check its results.