This would, presumably, include a temperate climate, clean water, fresh air, picturesque landscapes and our unique biodiversity - the foundations of an environment capable of supporting agriculture, horticulture, tourism, film and, of course, the quality of life which brings brains and dollars to our shores.
And yet at best, the answers here are of limited use because nowhere was the question tested of the price respondents would pay.
What the survey did show was that those in favour increased if certain preconditions were applied: if the environment were protected, or "returned to as it was"; if there were no increase in greenhouse gas emissions; if mining were done by New Zealand companies and the money stayed in New Zealand; if standard of living were to improve, and so on.
An interesting aspect of the responses was the rising levels of disagreement in 2012, relative to surveys in previous years, that "coal mining in New Zealand is undertaken in an environmentally responsible way".
This suggests New Zealanders' grasp of the reality of minerals activities is actually pretty sound, as some other recent surveys of environmental and economic priorities also show.
Pre-election 2011, voters asked to rank 21 election priorities responded that the environment was their top-ranked, with a rating of 8.2 out of 10.
New Zealanders love this country and want to protect it, in many cases, as a precondition of economic development as without our environment, the economy on which Kiwis depend isn't possible; nor is the quality of life with which most poll respondents were concerned.
So let's dig down past the misinformation, look at what lies beneath, and decide once and for all whether an economy which puts first an extractive, finite, polluting, not particularly lucrative industry, fighting for its economic life, is how we'll choose to proceed.
Claire Browning is a conservation advocate for conservation organisation Forest & Bird.
