The history of environmental anxiety in nineteenth-and twentieth-century New Zealand can be traced by focusing on problems caused by deforestation. In the 1840s concerns emerged that deforestation was causing climate change, soil erosion, sand drift and flooding. In the 1900s concerns about soil erosion overtook fears of climatic deterioration. A continued priority towards agricultural development at the expense of forestry constantly hampered conservation efforts throughout the nineteenth century. Only when the extent of agricultural expansion slowed down in the 1900s could these concerns be addressed; only then could a stronger, independent forestry service be established.

A fruitful new area of environmental history research can be undertaken on the relationship between plants and health in colonial societies. By using New Zealand as a case study, I demonstrate the strength of settler beliefs in the connections between existing environments, environmental transformation, and their own health. I attempt to reconnect the historiographies of medical and environmental history by arguing that urban settlements-as much as rural areas-were important sites for debates about environmental change and human health. I adopt a broad perspective in order to sketch out the contours of a new field, demonstrating the complicated connections between health, aesthetic appreciation, medicine and garden history. Furthermore, I argue that many environmental-health ideas associated with miasmic theories became incorporated into the microbial ʻrevolutionʼ taking place from the late nineteenth century. Finally, I note that a close study of settler environmental-health ideas reveals a far more ambiguous-a far more anxious-history of European engagement with temperate colonies than the existing historiography on the topic posits. Rather than wholly confident and arrogant agents of environmental exploitation, it reveals that great anxieties about health existed side-by-side with confidence in the environmentally transformative potential of colonisation.

No abstract

This article, using colonial New Zealand as a case-study, and integrating environment, empire and religion into a single analytic framework, contends that Christian and environmental discourses interpenetrated and interacted in irreducibly complex ways during the long nineteenth century. Many of the colonyʼs mostly Protestant settlers interpreted the book of Genesis as giving them responsibility to ʻsubdue and replenishʼ the natural world; dominion theology played an important role in legitimising the improvement projects integral to settler capitalism whose consequences have aroused ambivalence from many modern scholars. Yet some, perhaps many, colonists also believed that they had a duty to take care of the land and its creatures even while transforming it. A commitment to large-scale environmental change could and often did co-exist with interest in and respect for nature. When the unexpected and unwanted consequences of environmental transformation became apparent, as they did shortly after the beginning of organised settlement, concerned Protestant community leaders deployed Christian discourse, biblical images and Protestant ethics along with utilitarian and scientific arguments to mobilise environmental concern and a conservationist conscience.

This review article focuses on scholarship that lies at the intersection of histories of climate and British settler colonization in Australia and New Zealand. It first discusses the role of climate in their colonial histories and then developments in the field of climate history, examining similarities and differences within and between Australia and New Zealand. Next, it outlines two significant recent themes in climate history in both places: contested climate debates and perceptions, and social impacts and responses to climate. The article finishes by recommending future areas for research. Throughout, we stress the importance of local‐level approaches to climate as a means of understanding past and present, popular and scientific, interpretations of climate. We also emphasize the role that imperatives of colonization have played in shaping particular kinds of climate knowledge, including in overwriting nonelite views of climate. WIREs Clim Change 2016, 7:893–909. doi: 10.1002/wcc.426 This article is categorized under: Climate, History, Society, Culture > World Historical Perspectives