Report8_FinalWeb2

DEFINING A FUNCTIONAL LANDSCAPE FOR THE GEOSPATIAL IDENTIFICATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Ngā Māramatanga-ā-Papa (Iwi Ecosystem Services) Research Monograph Series No. 8

Nancy Golubiewski 2012

Defining a Functional Landscape for the Geospatial Identification of Ecosystem Services

Ngā Māramatanga-ā-Papa (Iwi Ecosystem Services) Research Monograph Series No. 8 (FRST MAUX 0502)

2012

Nancy Golubiewski Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand (at time of writing in 2008: New Zealand Centre for Ecological Economics, Massey University)

Published by Iwi Ecosystem Services Research Team Massey University and Landcare Research/Manaaki Whenua Private Bag 11052 Palmerston North New Zealand

Ngā Māramatanga-ā-Papa (Iwi Ecosystem Services) Research Monograph Series This monograph is part of the Ngā Māramatanga-ā-Papa (Iwi Ecosystem Services) Research Monograph Series. Various other reports, presentations, workshops and teaching materials have also been produced, or will be published in due course, that cover other aspects of the research programme. Collaborators in the research included Massey University, Landcare Research/Manaaki Whenua, Te Wānanga-o-Raukawa and Te Rūnanga-o-Raukawa.

This, and other published reports in the series, can be downloaded from: http://www.mtm.ac.nz/index.php/knowledge-centre/publications.

“Kei ngaro pērā i te moa ngā tini uri o te taiao” “Restoring cultural, linguistic and biological diversity” Whakatauki courtesy of Keri Opai, Taranaki

ISBN 978-1-877504-07-5 ISSN 1170-8794-

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. iii 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 2. Methods.............................................................................................................................. 4 2.1.

Study area definition .................................................................................................. 4 2.2.

Data acquisition ......................................................................................................... 7 2.3.

Refining ecosystem information .............................................................................. 10 3.

Results .......................................................................................................................... 12 3.1.

Classifications of current landscape..................................................................... 12 3.1.1.

Land cover and land use .................................................................................. 12 3.1.2.

Wetlands .......................................................................................................... 19 3.1.3.

Indigenous forests ............................................................................................ 21 3.2.

Refined classification of the landscape .................................................................... 26 4. Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 33 5. Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... 36 6. References ........................................................................................................................ 37

i

List of Tables Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9

Water catchments in study area ............................................................................... 6 Representation of LCDB2 classification in study area .......................................... 13 Wetland types and areas within project boundary ................................................. 21 Occurrence of indigenous forest types in study area ............................................. 22 Presence (ha) of indigenous forests types within each catchment ......................... 25 Composition of indigenous forest .......................................................................... 27 WONI wetlands occurring in LCDB2 classification ............................................. 29 Wetland context ..................................................................................................... 30 Ecosat indigenous forest classification categories coinciding with WONI wetland classification .......................................................................................................... 31 Table 10 Newly defined present land-cover categories and their areas within the project boundary ................................................................................................................ 31

List of Figures Figure 1

General location of study area- including current study area based on catchments as well as proposed boundaries to approximate rohe............................................... 5 Figure 2 Territorial authorities located within the study area. ............................................... 8 Figure 3 Catchments that comprise the study area. ................................................................ 9 Figure 4 Land Cover Database 2 (LCDB2) classification of the study area. ....................... 15 Figure 5 Riverine network and riparian buffers throughout study area. .............................. 17 Figure 6 Distribution of wetlands within the study area, as defined by the Wetlands of National Importance project. ................................................................................. 20 Figure 7 Frequency size distribution of wetlands. ............................................................... 21 Figure 8 Wetland composition. ............................................................................................ 23 Figure 9 Indigenous forest composition. .............................................................................. 24 Figure 10 Present land cover, composite of different data sources. ....................................... 28 Figure 11 DOC conservation units present in the study area. ................................................ 35

ii

Executive Summary

The New Zealand Centre for Ecological Economics (NZCEE), in partnership with Ngāti Raukawa, has undertaken a FRST project entitled “Ecosystem Services Benefits in Terrestrial Ecosystems for Iwi”, which seeks to understand ecosystem services in terms of biophysical, socioeconomic, and cultural values as a basis for illuminating ecological restoration, protection and enhancement initiatives. The research programme consists of two objectives: (1) assessing natural resources by quantifying and valuing the ecosystem services found in natural and managed landscapes; and (2) working in conjunction with iwi so that both western ecological and traditional Maori knowledge can be used to inform natural resource management and to identify ecological restoration options.

Researchers at NZCEE, Manaaki Whenua/Landcare Research, Massey University, and Te Wānanga-O-Raukawa are working together to quantify ecosystem services and economic values in natural ecosystems. This multi-phase project seeks to quantify ecosystem services at three time points: pre-settlement, present day, and possible futures. Research efforts are focusing on ascertaining the ecological aspects of the current land uses and land covers, which comprise ecosystem services. By creating a current portfolio of ecosystem services and reconstructing historical landscapes, it will be possible to understand how the area has altered with changing settlement patterns and land-use activities. Future phases of the project will use these results, in part, to explore the opportunities for ecological restoration projects within the rohe.

The first phase of the project, described in this report, has focused on defining and understanding the appropriate physical template to serve as the foundation for identifying and valuing ecosystem services. As noted by Troy and Wilson (2006), the proper definition of study area, and identifying its composition, is essential to a successful spatial analysis of ecosystem services. That is, in order to study ecosystem services in a biophysically based, spatially explicit manner, the landscape must be defined in terms of its structure and composition. Therefore, the objectives for this phase of the project entailed: 1) defining the study area appropriately for both the ecological and socio-cultural context; 2) identifying present land covers, including land uses, in the study area;

iii

3) creating the best possible land-cover classification for identifying ecosystem services with available data; 4) determining the structural landscape pattern of the study area, with particular emphasis on remnant wetlands and indigenous forest; and 5) assessing the composition and structure of landscape elements for catchments throughout the study area.

The results of this phase will be used in follow-on reports, including a change detection of the historical landscape, a biophysical accounting of ecosystem services, and a valuation of these services.

iv

1.

Introduction

Natural and managed landscapes provide ecosystem services that support both human society and ecological integrity (Brosi and others 2006; Daily 1997). Land-use intensification and the ensuing land-cover changes have been recognized as major agents of global environmental change for their influence on biota, net primary productivity, biogeochemical cycles, and climate (Dale 1997; Vitousek 1994; Vitousek and others 1997). Across land-use and land-cover types, ecosystem goods and services comprise the aggregate functional nature of natural and human-dominated landscapes (Brosi and others 2006; Daily 1997; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2003).

New Zealand offers a compelling example of the effects of land-use/land-cover change.

Although among the last major land masses to be settled by people (about 800 years ago), New Zealand has been altered radically by anthropogenic activities, both past and present (Ministry for the Environment 1997).

The most dramatic changes to land cover and

vegetation have occurred during the last century. Indigenous forests have been reduced by about 75%; much of what remains occurs in alpine environments or remote low-lying areas.

Only fragments remain of lowland forests. Grassland has expanded from 5% to 50% of the land area due to early deforestation and modern agricultural and timber production; introduced pasture grasses are overtaking the remaining native grasslands. Dunelands and wetlands have been destroyed and fragmented due to a variety of development concerns. The main land issues in New Zealand include the decline in ecological processes and biodiversity caused by habitat fragmentation in agricultural and urban areas; degradation of the most fertile soils by farming and their loss to urbanization; degradation of waterways by run off from farms and urban areas; and drainage of wetlands for development (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2003).

The extent of human domination of New Zealand’s landscapes requires that efforts to conserve indigenous vegetation incorporate rural and urban areas (Meurk and Hall 2006; Meurk and Swaffield 2000). Doing so leads to the recognition that natural and managed landscapes provide ecosystem services that support both human society and ecological integrity itself (Brosi and others 2006; Daily 1997). Ecosystem services offer a powerful framework for defining the goals, objectives, and justification for conservation and 1

restoration endeavors (Daily 1997). Yet, ecosystem services research often focuses on the value of services, frequently using proxies from the marketplace, rather than studying the ecological nature of the ecosystem service itself. Ecosystem service valuation can fail to capture the persuasive conservation potential realized by quantifying and synthesizing ecosystem services in biophysical terms.

The need to assess ecosystem services in an ecological and spatial context has been recognized (Troy and Wilson 2006).

The variety and amounts of ecosystem services

provided by a particular location are affected not only by the types of ecosystems present, but also by their condition and spatial arrangement. Thus, both the composition and structure of the landscape are important in determining ecosystem services, just as they are important for identifying conservation and restoration potential.

This project proposes to explore this potential by focusing on the biophysical measurements of ecosystem services in order to assess the opportunities for, and obstacles to, ecological restoration for hapū and iwi. The New Zealand Centre for Ecological Economics (NZCEE), in partnership with Ngāti Raukawa, has undertaken a FRST project entitled, “Ecosystem Services Benefits in Terrestrial Ecosystems for Iwi”, which seeks to understand ecosystem services in biophysical, socioeconomic, and cultural contexts. The research programme consists of two objectives: (1) assessing natural resources by quantifying and valuing the ecosystem services found in natural and managed landscapes; and (2) working in conjunction with the iwi so that both western ecological and traditional Maori knowledge can be used to improve natural resource management and to identify ecological restoration options.

Researchers at NZCEE, Landcare Research, Massey University, and Te Wānanga-ORaukawa are working together to explore ecological processes and economic values in natural and managed ecosystems. The multi-phase project seeks to understand the nature of present-day ecosystem services and their change through time. Research efforts are focusing on ascertaining the biophysical aspects of the current land-use and land-cover types that comprise ecosystem services (Golubiewski 2012) as well as reconstructing historical vegetation (Cole 2012).

By creating a current portfolio of ecosystem services and

reconstructing historical landscapes it will be possible to understand how the area has altered with changing settlement patterns and land-use activities. Future phases of the project will

2

use these results, in part, to explore the opportunities for ecological restoration projects within the rohe.

The first phase of the project, described here, focused on defining and understanding the appropriate physical template to serve as the foundation for identifying and valuing ecosystem services. As noted by Troy and Wilson (2006), the proper definition of study area, and the identification of its composition are essential to a successful spatial analysis of ecosystem services (comprising three of their seven steps: study area definition, typology development, and mapping). That is, in order to study ecosystem services in a biophysically based, spatially explicit manner, the landscape must be defined in terms of its structure and composition. Therefore, the objectives for this phase of the project entailed: 1) define the study area appropriately for both the ecological and socio-cultural context 2) identify present land covers, including land uses, in the study area 3) create the best possible land-cover classification for identifying ecosystem services with available data 4) determine the structural landscape pattern of the study area, with particular emphasis on remnant wetlands and indigenous forest 5) assess the composition and structure of landscape elements for catchments throughout the study area.

The results of this phase will be used in follow-on reports, including a change detection of the historical landscape, a biophysical accounting of ecosystem services, and a valuation of these services.

3

2.

Methods

2.1.

Study area definition

The study area was defined by the water catchments that encompass a general approximation of the rohe (tribal boundary) of Ngāti Raukawa ki te Tonga (often referred to as ‘the rohe’, ‘the project/study boundary’ throughout this report). The rohe approximation was delineated by a group of team members, including iwi researchers. This effort resulted in a composite boundary that mirrors a large proportion of tribal boundary the rohe of Ngāti Raukawa ki te Tonga and was derived from several sources of information, including the: Ngāti Raukawa Treaty claims maps, historic and modern cadastral property boundaries, locations on the 1:50,000 topographical maps, the location of Raukawa marae, land features significant to Ngāti

Raukawa,

significant

streams

and

rivers,

significant

wetlands,

the

Manawatu/Horowhenua/Kapiti coastline, and the Tararua and Ruahine ranges (A Cole and P Moore, pers. comm.).

The project boundary defines an area that includes over 90% of all freshwater, terrestrial and forest ecosystems of significant cultural value to the Ngāti Raukawa iwi and ngā hapū o Raukawa (G Harmsworth, pers. comm.) (Figure 1). The rohe area estimated for the purposes of this project includes Kapiti Island in the far south, runs north to include Waikanae, Te Horo, and Otaki, and follows the summit of the Tararua ranges north to the eastern edge of the Ruahine ranges north of Wharite peak, including the Ruahine state forest park. It then heads west to Umutoi north of Pohangina. A northern boundary then runs west to include the Oroua river and runs east to west across a line north of Apiti and Rangiwahia, including the Mangamako stream, to continue to the Rangitikei river. It crosses over to meet the northwestern side of the Rangitikei river near Ohingaiti (south of Mangaweka), then southwest on the western side of the Rangitikei, to include Orangipongo, Rewa, Waituna west, Tokorangi, Kakariki, Halcombe, and including the modern township of Bulls, before joining back to the western coastline adjacent to the Tasman sea. The project boundary then runs south along the coastline from Tangimoana and Himatangi in the north, back to Ōtaki beach and Waikanae in the south (G Harmsworth, pers. comm.).

4

Figure 1

General location of study area - including current study area based on catchments as well as proposed boundaries to approximate rohe.

5

As described, the rohe of Ngāti Raukawa ki te Tonga is situated on the west coast of the lower central North Island, just north of the Kapiti Coast (midpoint approximately 175°19'57.289"E 40°28'42.183"S) (Figure 1) in the Manawatu-Wanganui and Wellington regions and falls across eight territorial authorities: Tararua District, Manawatu District, Rangitikei District, Horowhenua District, Kapiti Coast District, Palmerston North City, Upper Hutt City, and Carterton District (in decreasing order of area) (Figure 2). In addition, a small part of the Central Hawke’s Bay District (in the Hawke’s Bay region) and South Wairarapa District are located along the eastern border of the study area (Figure 2).

Palmerston North is the main town located within the study area; the next largest town is Levin (Figure 1).

Table 1

Water catchments in study area Wetland area (ha)

Proportion of catchment in wetland (%)

Indigenous Forest area (ha)

Proportion of catchment in forest (%)

Catchment Number

River

Area (ha)

Number of Wetlands

515

Rangitikei

54418

12

36

0.1

1135

2.1

520

Rangitikei

8243

2

2

0.0

171

2.1

523

Porewa

11042

1

2

0.0

312

2.8

528

Kiwitea

24340

2

6

0.0

180

0.7

531

Oroua

33142

3

5

0.0

6328

19.1

536

Maungaraupi

2430

1

7

0.3

76

3.1

538

Pohangina

48841

4

31

0.1

8832

18.1

539

Rangitikei R

41231

16

96

0.2

190

0.5

544

Manawatu R

125545

76

456

0.4

4489

3.6

545

Rangitawa

6157

21

0.3

549

Mangaone

15852

18

0.1

552

Manawatu

19764

553

Forest Rd Drain

154

554

Pukepuke

555

Puke Puke

562

Waiwiri Stm

4808

563

Hokio

6984

565

Koputaroa

2035

566

Ohau

10110

1

3

568

Ohau R

8101

7

40

569

Ohau

121

571

Waikawa Stm

5956

12

67

572

Waitohu Stm

5091

14

79

576

Manakau

1689

578

Otaki

30536

581

Otaki R

5895

2

6

0.1

714

12.1

585

Mangaone Stm

4313

3

63

1.5

230

5.3

587

Kapiti I

1948

1218

62.5

588

Otaki

238

3

1.4

589

Waikanae Beach

3553

590

Otaki

19

4

25

0.1

612

3.1

8058

7

89

1.1

0

0.0

3891

4

55

1.4

13

86

1.8

42

0.9

24

148

2.1

27

0.4

16

0.8

0.0

6900

68.2

0.5

767

9.5

63

52.4

1.1

1995

33.5

1.5

1314

25.8

155

9.2

26416

86.5

1

14

1

138

0.0

3.9

371

10.4

2

9.4

* Blank cells indicate no wetland or forest present. Cells with “0.0” indicates less than 0.1%.

6

Since the project seeks to define ecosystem services on a biophysical basis, the study area needed to align with ecosystem definitions. Accordingly, the actual study area was defined as the catchments that form the tightest envelope around the estimated iwi boundary (Figure 3). The area comprises 31 catchments along 21 rivers, ranging in area from 19 ha to 125,570 ha (Table 1). The total study area is ~494,339 ha.

2.2.

Data acquisition

Several sources of spatial data were collected.

The Land Cover Database 2 (LCDB2)

provides a classification of land use and land cover across 42 categories for 2001/2002 (Ministry for the Environment 2004). LCDB2 is intended to be used in areas such as state of environmental monitoring, forest and shrubland inventory, biodiversity assessment, trend analysis and infrastructure planning (Terralink International Limited 2004). The Ecosat indigenous forest layer provided information about the composition of the indigenous forest based on satellite imagery from 1999 and 2000 (Dymond and Shepherd 2004).

Detailed information about wetland presence, extent, and type were acquired from the database created for the Wetlands of National Importance (WONI) research programme (Ausseil and others 2008). In the Manawatu region, an accuracy assessment of wetland identification found user’s accuracy of 76% and producer’s accuracy of 65%; and a site-bysite comparison resulted in a 0.96 correlation coefficient between ground truth and mapped wetlands (Ausseil and others 2007).

7

Figure 2

8

Territorial authorities located within the study area.

Figure 3

Catchments that comprise the study area.

9

2.3.

Refining ecosystem information

The natural and managed ecosystems were defined primarily by the LCDB2 classification (Ministry for the Environment 2004). In an effort to further refine this information, more detailed data from the Ecosat and WONI programmes (Ausseil and others 2008; Dymond and Shepherd 2004) were merged with the LCDB2 layer. The LCDB2 vector coverage was converted into a raster data set (co-registered to the Ecosat layers with a 15-m cell size) with the polygrid function in ArcGIS (J Shepherd, per. comm.). The raster data sets were merged so that incidences of Ecosat indigenous forest replaced LCDB2 indigenous forest, and WONI wetland occurrences replaced either LCDB2 categories or Ecosat indigenous forest classes.

Overall, then, the LCDB2 provided the base classification onto which the Ecosat indigenous forests and wetlands were superimposed, with the Ecosat forest taking precedence over LCDB2 and wetlands superseding both LCDB2 and Ecosat indigenous forests.

The wetland coverage was compared to the LCDB2 coverage in terms of classification congruence and wetland context. First, the occurrences of WONI wetlands were assessed in terms of the LCDB2 category with which they were co-located. Several LCDB2 classes can be considered to represent wetlands: Herbacous Freshwater Vegetation, Herbaceous Saline Vegetation, and Flaxland (Thompson and others 2003).

In addition, the Deciduous

Hardwoods and Tall Tussock Grassland area can capture wetland vegetation (Thompson and others 2003). Four water classes (Lake/Pond, River, River/Lakeshore Gravel & Rock, and Estuarine Open Water) may be associated with wetland areas (or at least indicate the proper vicinity). Second, LCDB2 indicates whether polygons assigned to other categories may fall into a “wetland context” (Thompson and others 2003). So, the degree to which WONI wetlands were located in areas characterised by a wetland context, according to LCDB2, was also examined.

In order to create a classification that provides a functional landscape for the purposes of ecosystem services, with a focus on natural landscapes, a new hierarchical classification was constructed from the detailed composite classification. Although classification hierarchies already exist (LCDB2 metadata 2004; e.g. Thompson and others 2003), the established categories do not meet the purposes of this project; they were, however, consulted in the process of defining new hierarchies. A summary field (along the lines of a “first order class”) was created to group individually defined classes appropriately for the purposes of

10

analyzing ecosystem services, i.e. functional groups of the land cover class that serve the purpose of ecosystem service analyses. If the detailed category was deemed necessary for the ecosystem services identification or valuation, then the first order class was the same as the “Land cover (LC)� class. The identification of these functional groups will also be subject to an iterative process of redefinition, as the needs of the ecosystem service identification and valuation unfold (as noted by Troy and Wilson 2006) and with feedback from the end-user community.

11

3.

Results

3.1.

Classifications of current landscape

The present day landscape is highly modified and does not reflect much of what potentially existed before human settlement (Cole 2012). This section reviews the types of land cover and land use identified by various data sets. The first provides comprehensive coverage of the study area; the second and third provide detailed information about wetlands and indigenous forests.

3.1.1. Land cover and land use In the LCDB2 classification, 38 (of a possible 42) land-use/land-cover categories fall within the project boundary; 18 are indigenous ecosystem types (including three that denote water bodies); and the remaining 20 are managed (Figure 4, Table 2).

The study area is

predominantly developed: natural ecosystem types occupy approximately 22% of the area, whereas managed land comprises 78%.

Natural ecosystems The representation of natural ecosystems is highly skewed (Table 2). Indigenous forest and broadleaved indigenous hardwoods cover 11% and 5% of the area, respectively.

The

remaining 16 categories of indigenous ecosystems each cover approximately 1% or less of the study area.

The indigenous forests are located primarily in the hill country along the eastern edge of the study area, especially in the southeastern corner (Figure 4). Other patches of indigenous forest sit at the northern end, and a few small patches are sprinkled throughout the central lowlands.

Kapiti Island is also covered in indigenous forest.

hardwoods occupy similar areas to the indigenous forests.

12

Broadleaved indigenous

Table 2

Representation of LCDB2 classification in study area

LCDB2 category Indigenous Forest Broadleaved Indigenous Hardwoods Sub Alpine Shrubland Manuka and or Kanuka River Tall Tussock Grassland River and Lakeshore Gravel and Rock Coastal Sand and Gravel Lake and Pond Herbaceous Freshwater Vegetation Landslide Flaxland Fernland Grey Scrub Estuarine Open Water Alpine Gravel and Rock Herbaceous Saline Vegetation Matagouri High Producing Exotic Grassland Pine Forest – Closed Canopy Short-rotation Cropland Low Producing Grassland Built-up Area Pine Forest – Open Canopy Deciduous Hardwoods Gorse and Broom Urban Parkland/Open Space Other Exotic Forest Afforestation (imaged, post LCDB 1) Afforestation (not imaged) Forest Harvested Major Shelterbelts Orchard and Other Perennial Crops Mixed Exotic Shrubland Surface Mine Vineyard Transport Infrastructure Dump

Area (ha) 58419 27175 6544 5538 2491 2281 1458 1110 960 759 151 82 50 49 48 33 22 1 324813 12257 10337 9836 7480 7476 3291 2088 2077 1926 1351 1165 1065 725 573 389 182 75 68 13

Proportion of study area (%) 11.8 5.5 1.3 1.1 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0* 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 65.7 2.5 2.1 2.0 1.5 1.5 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Natural or managed indigenous indigenous indigenous indigenous indigenous indigenous indigenous indigenous indigenous indigenous indigenous indigenous indigenous indigenous indigenous indigenous indigenous indigenous culturally derived culturally derived culturally derived culturally derived culturally derived culturally derived culturally derived culturally derived culturally derived culturally derived culturally derived culturally derived culturally derived culturally derived culturally derived culturally derived culturally derived culturally derived culturally derived culturally derived

*Proportions of “0.0” indicate less than 0.1%.

Other indigenous land-cover categories are also found in the hill country. By definition, subalpine shrubland is located near the summit of the ranges and so is located along the eastern border of the study area. Also known as the leatherwood belt, this is a distinctive feature of the central and northern Tararua Ranges (Department of Conservation 2007). Tall Tussock Grassland is found along the eastern border of the project area in the hill country.

13

According to DOC, two tall tussocks are the Chionochloa flavescends (broad-leaved snow tussock), occupying damper and more sheltered sites, and C. pallens (mid-ribbed snow tussock), found on more exposed sites (Department of Conservation 2007).

Several scrub/shrubland or transitional land covers also occur in the study area. Manuka and/or Kanuka are more scattered throughout the region, in contrast to other cover types: some occur along the western, coastal area, others are located in the northwestern corner and northern border as well as in some of the westernmost hill country. Grey Scrub is minimally represented at 10 sites along the coast and in the northern part of the study area. Fernland is found at seven sites, both near the coast and in the hill country. Matagouri occurs at one site at the northern central end of the study area.

Wetlands also occur in the study area (Figure 4); two land cover categories specifically identify them, while two other categories are typically found as wetland environments (Thompson and others 2003). The Herbaceous Freshwater Vegetation category, denoting wetlands, is found mostly in central lowlands with most instances situated on the coastal plain. The other wetland category, Herbaceous Saline Vegetation, occurs at one site near the Rangitikei River on the northwestern border of the study area (a probable misclassification).

Flaxland occurs at 17 sites in the western and central lowlands. Together, these categories comprise less than 0.2% of the landscape. Tall tussock grassland can also be associated with wetlands.

Several categories of bare surfaces are located within the study area (Figure 4). Coastal Sand and Gravel, by definition, is located along the coastal margin at the western edge of the study area. River and lakeshore gravel/rock has been identified along major rivers throughout the study area. Alpine Gravel and Rock is found in the north-eastern hill country as well as in a few isolated spots in the north-western portion (possible misclassifications) and one isolated spot in the south-eastern corner of the study area. Landslides, which may be “indigenous� or anthropogenically induced, were identified at 72 sites in the ranges and hill country.

14

Figure 4

Land Cover Database 2 (LCDB2) classification of the study area.

15

Three types of water bodies occur within the study area boundary: rivers; lakes and ponds; and estuarine open water (Figure 4). Together, these cover a total of 0.7% of the study area (Table 2). As expected, occurrences of estuarine open water are confined to a narrow strip along the coast. Rivers are located throughout the study area. Lakes and ponds are also scattered throughout the study area, with a higher density on the coast and a notable absence in the north-eastern and south-eastern ranges. The LCDB2 classification, however, identifies only portions of major rivers, not the entire riverine network. Viewed in combination with NZMS260 data, a comprehensive picture of the riverine network can be established (Figure 5). Riparian buffers were estimated as 75 m either side of the river centre line (J Shepherd pers. comm.), totalling an area of 172,185 ha, which comprises approximately one-third of the study area (Figure 5).

16

Figure 5

Riverine network and riparian buffers throughout study area.

17

Managed ecosystems The area encompassed by the project boundary comprises a primarily pastoral landscape (Figure 4, Table 2). Although 20 different culturally derived categories are represented, high producing exotic grassland covers 66% of the study area.

Five other categories each

comprise 1.5–2.5% of the landscape. Each of the remaining categories covers less than 1% of the study area.

High producing exotic grassland blankets much of the low lying area (apart from the coastal strip) and is absent from the high hill country in the south-eastern and north-eastern parts of the study area (Figure 4). Low producing grassland is located along the perimeter of high producing grassland – mostly along the coast and at the base of the ranges.

Pine plantations have the second largest presence in the study area (Figure 4). They are captured at five stages of their rotation cycle:

Afforestation (imaged and not-imaged),

identifying areas 4–5 years old; Pine forest-open canopy, denoting crops 6–15 years old; Pine forest-closed canopy, identifying stands older than 15 years that likely would be harvested within 10–15 years of the image date from which the data were derived; and Forest Harvested, which can also identify harvesting of other types of forest (Thompson and others 2003). Together, these forestry production activities comprise 4.7% of the landscape. Except for the southeastern and northeastern ranges, this land use occurs throughout the study area, with a particular density in the central western lowlands.

Other types of exotic woody vegetation are present as well. Deciduous hardwoods, typically designating willows and poplars growing adjacent to inland water and rivers, can also include stands of planted exotic hardwoods such as oak, ash, and elm (Thompson and others 2003).

Within the study area, they are scattered throughout the southern half and form dense linear corridors (most likely riparian) in the northern half (Figure 4). Gorse and broom are scattered throughout the area – especially in the northwest, central lowlands, and lower reaches of the western hill country. Other exotic forest is scattered throughout the lowlands. Similarly, major shelterbelts are located throughout the territory in the lowlands, mostly in the southern two-thirds of the study area. Mixed exotic shrubland occurs in the western lowlands with a few additional occurrences in the northern hill country.

18

A number of other agricultural activities take place within the study area. The occurrence of short rotation cropland generally follows the southwest-northeast axis in the eastern lowlands, away from the coast (Figure 4). It does not take place in the northern or eastern hill country.

Orchard and other perennial crops are located in eastern lowlands in the southern half of the rohe and along a west-east axis in the centre of the study area, which includes the outskirts of Palmerston North. Vineyards exist at nine inland locations in the southern end of the territory and at one site south of Palmerston North.

One city, Palmerston North, and several towns, Levin, Foxton, Feilding, and Otaki, sit within the study area (Figure 1). All the major population centres exist in lowlands located in the southern two-thirds of study area, and a few small villages are sprinkled throughout the northern hill country.

Urban parkland/open space is associated with built-up areas

(Thompson and others 2003). In addition, four dumps and transport infrastructure occur near these areas. Together, these land uses associated with urbanization comprise almost 2% of the study area (Table 2). Surface mine locations are in the northwest and south central lowlands of the study area (Figure 4).

3.1.2. Wetlands As defined by the WONI project (Ausseil and others 2008), 757 wetland occurrences, aggregated into 223 unique wetlands based on proximity, fall within the study area (Figure 6) and cover a total of 1,473.6 ha or 0.3% of the landscape. They range in size from 0.135 ha to 59.633 ha; most wetlands are small (Figure 7). Wetlands are located throughout the study area: 22 of the 31 catchments contain wetlands (Table 1). Wetland occurrence ranges from one, in four catchments, to 76 in the Manawatu River catchment. In addition to Kapiti Island, those catchments without recorded wetlands are situated in the interior of the study area along the southwest/northeast axis.

Within the study area, wetlands fall into five main categories – bog, swamp, marsh, fen, and seepage; swamps are the dominant type of wetland in the study area (Ausseil and others 2008) (Table 3). Nineteen of the catchments contain wetlands with swamp characteristics, and 15 catchments contain those with marsh (Figure 8). The wetlands located within nine catchments are of a single type: swamp (6 catchments), marsh (1), and seepage (2). The Manawatu River catchment is the only one to contain all five types of wetland.

19

Figure 6

20

Distribution of wetlands within the study area, as defined by the Wetlands of National Importance project.

Figure 7

Frequency size distribution of wetlands.

Table 3

Wetland types and areas within project boundary

Wetland type Bog Swamp Marsh Fen Seepage

Number of wetlands 4 500 231 4 18

Area (ha) 3 1052 331 14 10

3.1.3. Indigenous forests Eight of 11 possible indigenous forest types have been identified in the study area (Figure 9).

The forest types form three groups: those comprising more than 10,000 ha, those covering about 5,000 ha, and those less than 500 ha (Table 4). In all, indigenous forest occupies 12.6% of the study area. Indigenous forests consist mostly of podocarp-broadleaved and beech forest compositions (Figure 9, Table 4). Small areas of coastal forest also exist within the study area. The composition of more than 5,000 ha of indigenous forest could not be further detailed and so remains unspecified (Table 4).

21

Table 4

Occurrence of indigenous forest types in study area

Indigenous Forest type Beech/Broadleaved forest Beech/Podocarp-broadleaved forest Beech forest Broadleaved forest Coastal forest Podocarp-broadleaved/Beech forest Podocarp-broadleaved forest Subalpine scrub Unspecified Indigenous forest

Area (ha) 381 15,734 11,729 5,062 293 5,389 13,027 5,234 5,758

Proportion of study area (%) 0.1 3.2 2.4 1.0 0.1 1.1 2.6 1.1 1.2

All but two of the catchments contain indigenous forest, ranging in total area from 0.226,416 ha (Figure 9). In four catchments – Kapiti Island and the three south-eastern ones, indigenous forests cover more than 50% of the area. In half of the catchments – all those that cover the upper 2/3 of the study area (except for the two in the north-eastern corner) and a coastal one in the south, indigenous forests make up 5% or less of the catchment area (Figure 9). The two that do not contain forest are on the coastal plain, one of which is the notably small “Forest Hill Drain” catchment.

The composition of indigenous forests vary spatially, according to physiographic/ community relationships. Coastal forest and beech-broadleaved forest are each found in two catchments (Table 5). Beech forest and subalpine scrub are each found in five catchments in the ranges, co-occurring in four of them.

Podocarp-broadleaved/beech forest is found in the same

catchments as beech forest, as well as in one other. Unspecified indigenous forest is found in all but one of the catchments that contain any kind of indigenous forest; it is the only forest category for 11 of the catchments.

22

Figure 8

Wetland composition.

23

Figure 9

24

Indigenous forest composition.

Table 5

Presence (ha) of indigenous forests types within each catchment

Catchment ID

Subalpine Scrub

Coastal Forest

Podocarpbroadleaved forest

Broadleaved forest

Podocarpbroadleaved/ Beech forest

Beechbroadleaved forest

Beech/ Podocarpbroadleaved forest

Unspecified indigenous forest

Total forest (ha)

% of catchment

515

0

0

0

520

0

0

69

0

32

0

0

0

1103

1135

2.1

0

0

0

0

0

102

171

2.1

523

0

0

0

528

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

312

312

2.8

0

0

0

0

0

180

180

531

1306

0

0

0.7

4094

0

111

0

474

341

6328

19.1

536

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

538

3074

0

1687

894

17

267

372

1046

76

76

3.1

1475

8832

539

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

18.1

190

190

544

335

0

2415

0

956

0

0

0.5

0

783

4489

3.6

545

0

0

0

0

0

0

549

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

21

21

0.3

0

0

18

18

552

0

0

0

0

28

0.1

0

0

0

584

612

3.1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.0

562

0

0

0

563

0

0

0

0

40

0

0

0

2

42

0.9

0

0

0

0

0

27

27

565

0

0

0.4

0

0

0

0

0

0

16

16

0.8

566

18

568

0

0

4726

345

418

409

0

955

29

6900

68.2

0

484

0

213

16

0

0

54

767

569

9.5

0

0

63

0

0

0

0

0

0

63

52.4

571

0

0

269

56

802

154

0

694

21

1995

33.5

572

0

0

660

0

143

286

0

189

36

1314

25.8

576

0

0

91

0

0

0

0

25

40

155

9.2

578

500

0

2095

6338

989

4144

9

12329

13

26416

86.5

581

0

0

419

0

195

0

0

0

99

714

12.1

585

0

0

29

0

121

0

0

19

61

230

5.3

587

0

35

0

0

1108

0

0

0

75

1218

62.5

588

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

3

1.4

589

0

258

20

0

0

0

0

0

93

371

10.4

590

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

2

9.4

Beech Forest

553 554 555

25

3.2.

Refined classification of the landscape

The merging of data sets results in a more detailed and accurate land-use/land-cover classification (Figure 10). The indigenous forest composition information contained in the Ecosat forest classification was used to replace the general LCDB2 indigenous forest class.

Most of the indigenous forest was evenly distributed among Podocarp-broadleaved, Beech, and Beech/Podocarp-broadleaved forest types (Table 6). The composition of 10% of the indigenous forest could not be further identified, and 2% of the LCDB2 indigenous forest class were not identified as forest in the Ecosat indigenous forest classification (Table 6). For the latter, the LCDB2 indigenous forest classification was retained.

26

Table 6

Composition of indigenous forest

Each row shows the area (ha) distribution of LCDB2 categories among the ecosat indigenous forest classification. The percentage of the total LCDB2 category area falling into each community type is shown under each area.

Ecosat Indigenous Forest Classification: PodocarpSubalpine Coastal broadleaved scrub forest forest LCDB Indigenous Forest 985 293 12716 2% 1% 22% LCDB Sub Alpine Shrub

4249 65%

0 0%

311 5%

Podocarpbroadleaved Beech Broadleaved / Beech forest forest forest 11287 5061 5286 19% 9% 9%

Beech / Broadleaved forest 376 1%

Beech / Podocarpbroadleaved forest 15297 26%

Unspecified Indigenous forest Other Total 5728 1379 58408 10% 2% 100%

443 7%

5 0%

437 7%

30 0%

0 0%

103 2%

970 15%

6548 100%

27

Figure 10 Present land cover, composite of different data sources.

28

The WONI wetlands were examined in the context of the forest-enhanced classification. The wetlands were located in 27 of the 38 LCDB2 categories. Approximately one-third of the area designated as herbaceous freshwater vegetation, meant to indicate inland wetlands in the LCDB2 classification, coincided with 23% of the wetland area identified in the WONI project. Other land-cover categories associated with wetlands were also identified as WONI wetlands, including 44% of the flaxland area and less than 1% of the tall tussock grassland (Table 7). About 5% of the area classified as water (lake/pond, river, and estuarine open water) was identified as wetland in the WONI classification, comprising 15% of the total wetland area.

Table 7

WONI wetlands occurring in LCDB2 classification

LCDB category High Producing Exotic Grassland Herbaceous Freshwater Vegetation Lake and Pond Indigenous Forest Low Producing Grassland Pine Forest – Open Canopy Broadleaved Indigenous Forest Flaxland Deciduous Hardwoods Short-rotation Cropland Gorse and Broom Manuka and or Kanuka Other Exotic Forest Pine Forest – Closed Canopy Urban Parkland/Open Space Coastal Sand and Gravel Forest Harvested Afforestation (not imaged) River Estuarine Open Water Mixed Exotic Shrubland Built-up Area Afforestation (imaged) Major Shelterbelt Orchard and Other Perennial Crops Tall Tussock Grassland Grey Scrub

WONI wetland area (ha)

Proportion of total WONI wetland area (%)

Proportion of total LCDB2 category classified as WONI wetland (%)

288.0

24.0

0.1

274.9 177.7 129.6 73.9 54.6 43.9 36.2 34.9 25.0 17.0 12.9 5.8 5.5 3.8 3.8 2.8 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.0 1.0 0.5

22.9 14.8 10.8 6.2 4.6 3.7 3.0 2.9 2.1 1.4 1.1 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0

36.2 18.5 0.2 0.8 0.7 0.2 44.3 1.1 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 3.5 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.1

0.3 0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0

0.1 0.0 0.4

29

The LCDB2 wetland context designates possible wetland areas for other classification categories not normally associated with wetlands (Thompson and others 2003). In this study area, this designation was applied to some areas of broadleaved indigenous hardwoods (0.01% of category area), deciduous hardwoods (0.26%), and manuka and/or kanuka (0.07%). Of the total area considered as “wetland context� in the LCDB2, area, 37% of it corresponded to wetlands in the WONI classification, which comprised 1% of the WONI wetland area. This varied by land-cover type, with majority agreement for wetland context in the manuka and/or kanuka category and almost 50% agreement for broadleaved indigenous hardwoods (Table 8).

Table 8

Wetland context

Area (ha) and proportion (%) of LCDB2 categories identified as having a wetland context that coincide with WONI wetland classification.

LCDB2 category Broadleaved Indigenous Hardwoods Deciduous Hardwoods Manuka and/or Kanuka

WONI wetland area (ha)

Proportion of category area identified as wetland context found in WONI wetland (%)

1.8 8.4 3.7

49 29 88

Another 24% of total WONI wetland area was identified in what the LCDB2 designated as high producing exotic grassland (0.1% of category area) (Table 7). Further, 11% of wetland area was located in areas designated as indigenous forest in the LCDB2 classification.

Regarding the latter, less than 3% of total wetland area overlapped the forest compositions identified in the Ecosat indigenous forest classification; the remaining 8% of wetland area coincided with unspecified indigenous forest (i.e., the LCDB2 classification) (Table 9).

Given the field-based method used to designate the WONI wetlands, they were given precedence over the enhanced forest classification created in the previous step.

30

Table 9

Ecosat indigenous forest classification categories coinciding with WONI wetland classification

WONI wetland Ecosat forest Classification area (ha) Podocarp-broadleaf forest 25 Beech forest 1 Broadleaved forest 4 Unspecified Indigenous forest 95

Proportion of total WONI wetland area (%) 2.1 0.1 0.3 7.9

Area (ha) in each WONI Wetland Type Marsh Swamp Seepage Bog 23 0 0 34

2 0 4 60

0 1 <1 0

0 0 0 <2

The redefined composite classification contains a total of 45 detailed land-use/land-cover categories. These were combined into 22 functional groups (Table 10). Fourteen of the functional groups match the LULC category (a 1:1 correspondence) since it is projected that the category offers unique ecosystem goods and services.

Table 10

Newly defined present land-cover categories and their areas within the project boundary

Functional groups (combining detailed categories) are also defined.

Land-Use Land-Cover category Alpine Gravel and Rock Built-up Area Transport Infrastructure Coastal Sand and Gravel Deciduous Hardwoods Dump Estuarine Open Water Beech/Broadleaved Forest Beech/Podocarp-Broadleaved Forest Beech Forest Broadleaved Forest Coastal Forest Indigenous Forest Podocarp-broadleaved/Beech Forest Podocarp-broadleaved Forest Lake and Pond Landslide Major Shelterbelts Other Exotic Forest Afforestation Forest Harvested Pine Forest â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Closed Canopy Pine Forest â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Open Canopy Orchard and Other Perennial Crops Short-rotation Cropland

Functional_Group Alpine Gravel and Rock Built/Impervious Built/Impervious Coastal Sand and Gravel Deciduous Hardwoods Dump Estuarine Open Water Indigenous Forest Indigenous Forest Indigenous Forest Indigenous Forest Indigenous Forest Indigenous Forest Indigenous Forest Indigenous Forest Lake and Pond Landslide Major Shelterbelts Other Exotic Forest Pinus radiata plantation Pinus radiata plantation Pinus radiata plantation Pinus radiata plantation Primarily Horticulture Primarily Horticulture

Area (ha) 33 7479 68 1081 3252 13 46 381 15734 11728 5058 293 7038 5389 13001 781 151 719 1910 2508 1061 12248 7413 572 10311

31

Land-Use Land-Cover category Vineyard High-producing Exotic Grassland Low Producing Grassland River River and Lakeshore Gravel and Rock Gorse and Broom Mixed Exotic Shrubland Broadleaved Indigenous Hardwoods Fernland Grey Scrub Manuka and or Kanuka Matagouri Subalpine Scrub Surface Mine Tall Tussock Grassland Urban Parkland/ Open Space Flaxland Herbaceous Freshwater Vegetation Herbaceous Saline Vegetation WONI wetland

32

Functional_Group Primarily Horticulture Primarily Pastoral Primarily Pastoral River River and Lakeshore Gravel and Rock Scrub and Shrubland-exotic Scrub and Shrubland-exotic Scrub and Shrubland-indigenous Scrub and Shrubland-indigenous Scrub and Shrubland-indigenous Scrub and Shrubland-indigenous Scrub and Shrubland-indigenous Scrub and Shrubland-indigenous Surface Mine Tall Tussock Grassland Urban Parkland/ Open Space Wetland Wetland Wetland Wetland

Area (ha) 75 324577 9764 2493 1457 2071 386 27129 50 49 5520 1 6204 182 2285 2074 46 485 22 1200

4.

Discussion

The effort required to delineate the study area appropriately revealed the complexity of approaching this research project from two distinct world views. The indigenous definition of place on the landscape is rooted in oral history and cultural practice rather than cartographic markers â&#x20AC;&#x201C; yet the landscape is still important.

Implementing a watershed

approach was an important step for the research team as a means to tie the research findings to the landscape and to incorporate an appropriate foundation from a scientific point of view.

The study areaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s main physiographic characteristics are its broad, low coastal plain in the west and steep ranges in the east, all of which are densely populated by an extensive riparian network (Figure 5). The study area sits on the alluvial plains and sediment-filled depressions of the Manawatu (Leathwick and others 2007). As noted by Leathwick et al. (2007), the region is dominated by large river systems, which have at least some tributaries in the steep upper catchments of the ranges and many across extensive lowland alluvial plains; some of these river systems are among the largest catchments in the southern North Island province, e.g., the Manawatu, Ohua, Otaki, and Waikane Rivers, all draining in to the Tasman Sea (Figure 3). The dominant alluvial character of the study area is further revealed by the fact that approximately one-third of it is comprised of riparian buffers.

Additionally, the

Manawatu coastline is made up of unstable dune country, where small dune lakes are common (Leathwick and others 2007).

Overall, the present land uses and land covers reveal this to be a human-dominated landscape.

There are a number of land-use/land-cover categories (LULCC) present, but most are present only at a few sites and as small areas. Although the landscape is highly modified, it is not highly urbanized; rather, the majority of LULCC pertain to the primary production sectors supporting livestock. The matrix, as identified by Forman and Godron (1986), is the most extensive and most connected landscape element type, and therefore plays the dominant role in the functioning of the landscape. In this study area, all landscape dynamics play out on a matrix of highly producing exotic grassland.

33

Still, forest patches and remnant wetlands remain in a matrix of anthropogenic land uses.

Approximately 96% of the North Island was covered by indigenous forest before human settlement; see details of local study area in Cole (2012). The current forest coverage of less than 13% reinforces the assessment of a heavily modified landscape. Indeed, Ewers et al.

(2006) identified the conservation status within the Manawatu–Wanganui region, in which this study area falls, to be Critical, given that less than 30% of indigenous forest falls within conservation units (Figure 11).

The importance of wetlands within the study area is highlighted by the fact that eight of the ten top wetland sites in the wider Manawatu–Wanganui district were identified within the bounds of the study area, most of which are on the plains of the Horowhenua district (Ausseil and others 2007). Four of these eight are located in Department of Conservation protected areas. In all, twenty-seven of the 209 conservation units contain wetlands; 29 of the 233 uniquely identified wetlands sit within DOC conservation units (Figure 11). The study area consists of a varied and fragmented landscape. The remnant indigenous cover types – both wetlands and forests – are small, fragmented, and dispersed across the landscape.

The ecosystem services in the study area will vary according to landscape composition – the LULCC present, their condition, the extent of their transformation by human activities – as well as landscape structure – the fragmentation, network connectivity, and adjacency of various LULCC. With the landscape template defined, ecosystem services can be further investigated through the wider research programme.

34

Figure 11 DOC conservation units present in the study area.

35

5.

Acknowledgements

This research project benefited from the assistance of several people and institutions. In particular, I thank Garth Harmsworth and Janice Willoughby for compiling data and providing sound research advice. Landcare Research and the Department of Conservation contributed data. Production assistance was received from Jemma Callaghan and Derrylea Hardy. This research is part of the Iwi Ecoservices project, funded by Foundation for Research, Science and Technology contract number EOI-10106-ECOS-MAU.

36

6.

References

Ausseil A-G, Dymond JR, Shepherd JD. 2007. Rapid mapping and prioritisation of wetland sites in the Manawatu-Wanganui region, New Zealand. Environmental Management 39:316-325.

Ausseil A-G, Gerbeaux P, Chadderton WL, Stephens T, Brown DJ, Leathwick J. 2008.

Wetland ecosystems of national importance for biodiversity: Criteria, methods and candidate list of nationally important inland wetlands. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Landcare Research Contract Report for the Department of Conservation.

Report nr LC0708/158. 162 p.

Brosi BJ, Daily GC, Davis FW. 2006. Agricultural and urban landscapes. In: Scott JM, Goble DD, Davis FW, editors. The Endangered Species Act at thirty: Conserving biodiversity in human-dominated landscapes. Washington DC: Island Press. p 256274.

Cole AO. 2012. The vegetation cover of the Horowhenua and Manawatū regions ca. 18001840: towards a spatial reconstruction.

Ngā Māramatanga-ā-Papa (Iwi Ecosystem Services) Research Monograph Series No. 1.

Palmerston North, Iwi Ecosystem Services Research Team, Massey University & Landcare Research/Manaaki Whenua.

Daily GC, editor. 1997. Nature's Services. Washington D.C.: Island Press. 392 p.

Dale VH. 1997. The relationship between land-use change and climate change. Ecological Applications 7(3):753-769.

Department of Conservation. 2007. Vegetation: Features of Tararua Forest Park. Wellington: Department of Conservation.

Dymond JR, Shepherd JD. 2004. The spatial distribution of indigenous forest and its composition in the Wellington region, New Zealand, from ETM+ satellite imagery.

Remote Sensing of Environment 90(1):116-125.

Ewers RM, Kliskey AD, Walker S, Rutledge D, Harding JS, Didham RK. 2006. Past and future trajectories of forest loss in New Zealand. Biological Conservation 133(3):312325.

Golubiewski NE. 2012. Ecosystem service inventory of the natural and managed landscapes within the greater Ngāti Raukawa area. Ngā Māramatanga-ā-Papa (Iwi Ecosystem Services) Research Monograph Series No. 7. Palmerston North, Iwi Ecosystem Services Research Team, Massey University & Landcare Research/Manaaki Whenua.

LCDB2 metadata. 2004. New Zealand LCDB 2 and the Land Cover Classification System (LCCS). Wellington: Ministry for the Environment. 4 p.

Leathwick JR, Collier K, Chadderton L. 2007. Identifying freshwater ecosystems with nationally important natural heritage values: development of a biogeographic framework. Wellington: Department of Conservation. 30 p.

Meurk CD, Hall GMJ. 2006. Options for enhancing forest biodiversity across New Zealand's managed landscapes based on ecosystem modelling and spatial design. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 30(1):131-146.

Meurk CD, Swaffield SR. 2000. A landscape ecological framework for indigenous regeneration in rural New Zealand-Aotearoa. Landscape and Urban Planning 50:129144.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2003. Ecosystems and human well-being: A framework for assessment. Washington D.C.: Island Press. 245 p.

37

Ministry for the Environment. 1997. The State of New Zealand's Environment 1997.

Wellington: Ministry for the Environment.

Ministry for the Environment. 2004. New Zealand Land Cover Database 2 User Guide.

Wellington: New Zealand Climate Change Office, Ministry for the Environmnet. 24 p.

Terralink International Limited. 2004. ANZLIC Metadata New Zealand Land Cover Database (LCDB2). Wellington: Terralink International Limited. 4 p.

Thompson S, Gruner I, Gapare N. 2003. New Zealand Land Cover Database Version 2 Illustrated Guide to Target Classes. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment. 126 p.

Troy A, Wilson MA. 2006. Mapping ecosystem services: Practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer. Ecological Economics 60:435-449.

Vitousek PM. 1994. Beyond global warming: Ecology and global change. Ecology 75(7):1861-1876.

Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo JM. 1997. Human domination of Earth's ecosystems. Science 277:494-499.

38