Transcript Using Scenarios to Estimate the Condition and Trend of

Using Scenarios to Estimate the
Condition and Trend of Coastal
Environments
Daniel Rutledge, Craig Briggs, and Robbie Price
Manaaki Wheuna Landcare Research, Hamilton
Feathers to Fur
New Zealand Ecological Society Annual
Conference
Christchurch, 22 November 2007
1
Acknowledgements
• Co-funded by the Department of Conservation as part of
the National Coastal Policy Statement review
• DOC
– Theo Stephens
– Vicki Carruthers
• Landcare Research
–
–
–
–
–
–
James Barringer
Ian Lynn
Malcolm McLeod
Gary Barker
Deb Wilson
Susan Walker
2
3
Introduction
• RMA mandates protection of coastal environments under Section 6
– “matters of national importance”
• National Coastal Policy Statement – preserve natural character of
the coastal environment including but not limited to
– Significant vegetation & habitats
– Landscapes, seascapes, & landforms
– Integrity, functioning, and resilience
• Coastal Policy Statement Review: Should biodiversity be considered
separately and distinctively from natural character?
• Neither the RMA or National Coastal Policy Statement provide an
explicit definition of “coastal environment”
• Regional coastal policy statements vary widely in their interpretation
& definition of coastal environments, with some advocating a caseby-case definition given the complex nature of such environments
4
Objectives
• Develop 3–5 scenarios delineating the extent of
terrestrial coastal environments in New Zealand
• Evaluate condition and trends based on
–
–
–
–
–
Condition – Land Cover Database (LCDB)
Protection – Protected Areas Network Database (PAN-NZ)
Representativeness – LENZ Environments
Trend – LCDB 1 to LCDB 2
Report by New Zealand, regions, and districts
• Estimate risk to coastal environments from continued
urban development
5
Methods
• Generated 5 scenarios using different combinations of input data
LINZ
Coastline
Elevation
LCR DEM
LRI
Coastal Soils
LCDB2 Coastline
Coastal Unit
• Combinatorial Analysis
– Combined
•
•
•
•
•
Coastal Environment Scenarios
LCDB
PAN-NZ
LENZ
Region & District boundaries
– Produced a combined spatial data layer and accompanying database
with records of all unique combinations of input data
• Analysed condition and trend for each of the 5 scenarios using the
resulting combinatorial data layer and associated database.
6
LINZ Coastline Distance Buffers
7
DEM Elevation Buffers
8
LRI Coastal
Soils
• Soils scientists
identified soils in LRI
formed wholly or
partly by coastal
processes
• Unsupervised search
found both coastal
and inland soils
• Refined search by
only including soils
with specified
distances to the
coast
9
Scenario 1
LINZ Coastline
≤100 m
10
and
Scenario 2
LINZ Coastline
≤ 500 m
Elevation
≤ 10 m
11
or
Scenario 3
LRI
Coastal Soils
LRI
Coastal Soils
and
and
LINZ Coastline
≤ 2 km
LCDB2 Coastline
≤ 2 km
LINZ Coastline
≤ 100 m
12
or
Scenario 4
Elevation
≤ 10 m
Elevation
≤ 10 m
Elevation
≤ 50 m
and
and
and
LINZ Coastline
≤ 2 km
LCDB2 Coastline
≤ 2 km
LINZ Coastline
≤ 500 m
13
or
LINZ Coastline
≤ 100 m
Scenario 5
Elevation
≤ 100 m
Elevation
≤ 10 m
and
and
LINZ Coastline
≤ 1 km
LCDB2 Coastline
Coastal Unit
and
LRI
Coastal Soils
ID
LINZ Coastline
≤ 250 m
14
15
Combinatorial Analysis
Coastal Scenarios + LCDB + PAN-NZ + LENZ +
Regional & District Boundaries
16
LCDB Indigenous Land Cover
Alpine Grass/Herbfield
Grey Scrub
Manuka and or Kanuka
Alpine Gravel and Rock
Herbaceous Freshwater
Vegetation
Matagouri
Broadleaved Indigenous
Hardwoods
Herbaceous Saline
Vegetation
Permanent Snow and Ice
Coastal Sand and Gravel
Indigenous Forest
River
Depleted Grassland
Lake and Pond
River and Lakeshore
Gravel and Rock
Estuarine Open Water
Landslide
Sub-Alpine Shrubland
Fernland
Mangrove
Tall Tussock Grassland
Flaxland
17
National Results
Scenario
New Zealand
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
Scenario 5
Total Area
(ha)
Size
Rank
26 013 525
Indigenous Land Cover
Indigenous Land Cover
Not Legally Protected
% of Total
Scenario
Area
% of Total
Indigenous
Cover Area
LCDB2 Area
(ha)
LCDB2
Area (ha)
12 632 960
48.56
4 796 301
37.97
133 049
5
72 246
54.30
43 808
60.64
165 819
4
56 718
34.20
37 355
65.86
403 751
2
126 472
31.32
71 363
56.43
582 014
1
189 421
32.55
106 315
56.13
273 014
3
118 477
43.40
69 835
58.94
18
National Results (con’t)
• In all five scenarios at least half of remaining indigenous land cover
not legally protected (INP) occurred in threatened environments
• INP in coastal environments was 1.5 to 3.2 times more likely to
occur in threatened environments than less reduced and/or better
protected environments compared with a 1:1 ratio nationally
• Five indigenous land cover classes dominated INP in coastal
environments:
–
–
–
–
–
broadleaved indigenous hardwoods
coastal sands and gravel
herbaceous saline vegetation
indigenous forest
manuka and/or kanuka
• None of the five scenarios showed significant change (gain or loss)
in INP from LCDB1c to LCBD2
19
Regions & Unitary Authorities
n
oa
st
W
es
tC
gt
o
25000
W
el
lin
o
an
ki
W
ai
ka
t
sm
Ta
na
d
go
d
th
la
n
ra
Ta
So
u
ta
th
la
n
O
or
N
Au
ck
la
nd
Ba
y
of
Pl
en
ty
C
an
te
rb
ur
y
G
is
bo
rn
e
H
aw
M
ke
an
s
aw
Ba
at
y
uW
an
ga
nu
i
M
ar
lb
or
ou
gh
N
el
so
n
C
ity
Total Area of INP Remaining (ha)
Regional Results
30000
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
Scenario 5
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
20
an
a
M
Regions & Unitary Authorities
ta
go
C
ity
80%
70%
oa
st
gh
d
90%
W
es
tC
or
ou
th
la
n
So
u
o
an
W
ai
ka
t
sm
Ta
ar
lb
M
O
so
n
d
la
n
th
Au
ck
la
nd
el
N
or
ty
e
ki
or
n
na
Pl
en
is
b
of
N
Ba
y
G
ra
Ta
an
ui
n
y
Ba
ry
gt
o
an
g
W
at
u-
w
W
el
lin
s
te
rb
u
ke
aw
H
an
C
% INP Remaining in Threatened Enviornments
Regional Results (con’t)
100%
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
Scenario 5
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
21
Regional Results (con’t)
• Total area of INP in a scenario by region
was generally proportional to the size of
the total scenario area
• Remaining INP in threatened
environments tended to occur more in
Acutely and Chronically Threatened
environments.
22
District Results
•
Total area of INP by district ranged from 0 ha (not part of coastal environment)
to 20 243 (Far North District, Scenario 4)
•
15 districts had no area in INP across all five scenarios: Central Otago, Gore,
Hamilton City, Kawerau, Mackenzie, Matamata-Piako, Palmerston North,
Queenstown Lakes, Rotorua, Ruapehu, South Waikato, Stratford, Taupo,
Upper Hutt, Waipa
•
Most districts had less than 1 000 ha total area in INP remaining (59 - Scenario 1;
61 -Scenario 2; 54 - Scenario 3; 51 - Scenario 4; and 54 - Scenario 5)
•
Percent of total area in INP remaining in threatened environments varied from 0%
including the 15 districts mentioned above with no INP to 100%
•
Remaining INP in threatened environments tended to occur more in Acutely
Threatened environments and then divided evenly between Chronically Threatened
and At Risk environments
•
Total area of INP was unusually high in At Risk Environments in Far North
(3495–10 565 ha), Kaipara (1134–37 650 ha), and Rodney districts (1328–3330 ha)
compared with other districts across all five scenarios.
23
District Results
Total Area of INP by Coastal Environment Scenario
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
1
Far North
Far North
Far North
Far North
Far North
2
Marlborough
Southland
Marlborough
Marlborough
Marlborough
3
Southland
Westland
Rodney
Southland
Southland
4
ThamesCoromandel
Marlborough
Kaipara
Kaipara
Kaipara
5
Auckland City
Rodney
Southland
Westland
Rodney
6
Rodney
Kaipara
Auckland City
Rodney
ThamesCoromandel
7
Kaipara
Tasman
ThamesCoromandel
ThamesCoromandel
Auckland City
8
Whangarei
Invercargill
Buller
Auckland City
Tasman
9
Tasman
ThamesCoromandel
Tasman
Whangarei
Buller
10
Gisborne
Western Bay of
Plenty
Whangarei
Tasman
Whangarei
24
Urban Change Analysis
Built-Up and Urban Parkland-Open
Space
Scenario
LCDB1c
LCDB2
1
6 689
6 734
2
17 575
17 719
3
4
5
14 630
44 935
12 619
Difference
ha
%
45
0.68
144
0.82
141
0.96
460
1.02
134
1.07
14 771
45 395
12 754
25
Conclusions
• Scenario generation was a useful method for evaluating a range of
possible coastal environments but was more technically challenging
than anticipated
• Condition of coastal environments based on LCDB appeared to be
sensitive to the definition/delineation of the coastal environment
• Coastal environments had relatively high percentages of land
recovering from past disturbance based on the amount of early
successional land cover (i.e. broadleaved indigenous hardwoods
and manuka and/or kanuka) reported
• A more complete analysis of condition than provided by LCDB would
likely result in the overall condition of coastal environments being
lower than reported
26
Conclusions
• Protection status of coastal environments appeared to be insensitive
to the definition/delineation of the coastal environment
• Coastal environments were overall more poorly protected compared
to non-coastal environments nationally
• Risk and consequences of further loss to remaining indigenous
vegetation (protected or unprotected) is higher in coastal
environments than nationally
• LCDB1c to LCDB2 in its current form appear incapable of detecting
the types of change (e.g., low density urban development) occurring
in many coastal environments
• Scenarios and the broad-scale datasets used to generate them
provide the ability to undertake broad-scale analyses that can help
inform conservation management and call attention to data gaps
27
Thank you!
28
Scenario Statistics
Total Area
Scenario
Summary
New Zealand
LINZ Coastline
Scenario 1
Ha
LENZ Level IV Reportable Area
% of NZ
Ha
% of NZ
% of
Scenario
26 224 803
100.00
26 013 525
99.19
99.19
LINZ Coastline 100m
Buffer
136 074
0.52
133 049
0.63
97.78
Scenario 2
10 m Elevation &
500m LINZ Coastline
172 051
0.66
165 819
1.54
96.38
Scenario 3
Coastal Soils & LINZ
Coastline 100m
Buffer
406 854
1.55
403 751
2.22
99.24
Scenario 4
Sliding Scale
Elevation & Distance
Buffer
595 020
2.27
582 014
1.04
97.81
Scenario 5
Complex BufferElevation-Soils-Land
Cover
280 632
1.07
273 014
2.45
97.29
29