How many people can New Zealand support?

[The Uchronian]

Inspired by the similar threads on Australia and Canada, and as it says on the label.

New Zealand has always seemed a tad underpopulated to me: IOTL, it doesn't even have 5 million people as of 2015. But did it have to be this way? There's a fair amount of farmland in the country, and Japan is able to cope with just over 100 million people. I think 10-15 million wouldn't be too unrealistic, but what do you think?

 

[Julius Vogel]

It certainly could support more with its current model and probably a lot more with different models.

There is a lot of land however which is pretty marginal for intensive human use, including much of inland south island . Until the rise of modern tourism in the 80s much of this land was deemed as waste and only fit for low intensity sheep and beef farming, the kind of farms that were 10-20,000 acres in size but not really much different in carrying capacity to a coastal equivalent of a tenth the size.

 

[galanx]

Taiwan- much of which is mountainous- supports 23 million. Depends what you mean by "support"- self-sufficient in food?

 

[fluttersky]

It has a very similar climate to that of the U.K., and has a slightly greater area. Thus it should be able to support 70 million or so people.

 

[Caiaphas]

It could support tens of millions but if you want it to be self reliant on food and energy I doubt New Zealand can get more then 10 million

 

[LordTerra]

I think one of New Zealand's biggest problems is how remote it is. It was one of the farthest places from the colonials and was only grabbed by the UK to stop the French or Dutch having it.

Australia basically acts like a massive barrier to immigrants reaching New Zealand and with Australia's selective immigration policy this acts as a further deterrent to head in NZ's direction.

So you either need POD that leads to Australia/Australian colonies having a different immigration policy that leads to more immigration...

Or...have the people in New Zealand be very fertile very is going towards ASB unless something changes their mindset towards family sizes or the inner land of the two islands.

Or alternatively Victoria Island and/or various Pacific islands join or are seceded to New Zealand instead of Australia.

 

[Malone]

I've always thought NZ was very underpopulated, honestly it seems like its climate is arguably more hospitable to live in than Australia's.

I personally don't think i'd be able to take the Aussie heat but NZ seems downright pleasant. Not to mention the water issue which I don't think is a problem there as it is in Australia.

 

[edgeworthy]

If we use Population Density based on Arable land as a measure, New Zealand has about a quarter the number of Britain (The obvious comparison) and about 11 times (At least an entire order of magnitude less) than Japan or Taiwan.

 

[jahenders]

It depends -- how many of them are hobbits?

Inspired by the similar threads on Australia and Canada, and as it says on the label.

New Zealand has always seemed a tad underpopulated to me: IOTL, it doesn't even have 5 million people as of 2015. But did it have to be this way? There's a fair amount of farmland in the country, and Japan is able to cope with just over 100 million people. I think 10-15 million wouldn't be too unrealistic, but what do you think?

 

[Arkenfolm]

It's probably impossible to get New Zealand to have over 10 million people barring either ASB resulting in massive immigration or introducing the Maori to the potato before the Musket Wars.

 

[Meshakhad]

I'll jump in as this is quite relevant to TAPYDNK. New Zealand has, overall, a roughly similar climate to Britain, so that seems to be a good model. So, maybe 30 million, assuming you got an agricultural society there early enough (see my sig for details )