Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Rapid Mapping and Prioritisation of Wetland Sites in the Manawatu–Wanganui Region, New Zealand

  • RESEARCH
  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The extent of wetland in New Zealand has decreased by approximately 90% since European settlement began in 1840. Remaining wetlands continue to be threatened by drainage, weeds, and pest invasion. This article presents a rapid method for broad-scale mapping and prioritising palustrine and estuarine wetlands for conservation. Classes of wetland (lacustrine, estuarine, riverine, marine, and palustrine) were mapped using Landsat ETM+ imagery and centre-points of palustrine and estuarine sites as ancillary data. The results shown are for the Manawatu–Wanganui region, which was found to have 3060 ha of palustrine and 250 ha of estuarine wetlands. To set conservation priorities, landscape indicators were computed from a land-cover map and a digital terrain model. Four global indicators were used (representativeness, area, surrounding naturalness, and connectivity), and each was assigned a value to score wetland sites in the region. The final score is an additive function that weights the relative importance of each indicator (i.e., multicriteria decision analysis). The whole process of mapping and ranking wetlands in the Manawatu–Wanganui region took only 6 weeks. The rapid methodology means that consistent wetland inventories and ranking can now actually be produced at reasonable cost, and conservation resources may therefore be better targeted. With complete inventories and priority lists of wetlands, managers will be able to plan for conservation without having to wait for the collection of detailed biologic information, which may now also be prioritised.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anselin A., P. M. Meire, L. Anselin. 1989. Multicriteria techniques in ecological evaluation: an example using the analytical hierarchy process. Biological Conservation 49:215–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beinat E. 1997. Value functions for environmental management. Kluwer Academic, Boston, MA, 241 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Chopra R., V. K. Verma, P. K. Sharma. 2001. Mapping, monitoring and conservation of Harike wetland ecosystem, Punjab, India, through remote sensing. International Journal of Remote Sensing 22:89–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson B. D., D. W. Stephens. 2000. Utility of environmental domains as a framework for assessing representativeness of terrestrial and wetland natural areas. CBER Contract Report 6. Centre for biodiversity and ecology research, Department of Biological Sciences, The University of Waikato, Hamilton, June 2000, 21 pp

  • Congalton R. G., K. Green. 1999. Assessing the accuracy of remotely sensed data: principles and Practices. Lewis, New York, NY, 137 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Coppolillo P. H. G., F. Maisels, R. Wallace. 2004. Selection criteria for suites of landscape species as a basis for site-based conservation. Biological Conservation 115:419–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dymond J. R., J. D. Shepherd. 2004. The spatial distribution of indigenous forest and its composition in the Wellington region, New Zealand, from ETM+ satellite imagery. Remote Sensing of Environment 90:116–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eyles G. R. J., P. F. Newsome. 1990. A decade of experience using a New Zealand GIS. New Zealand Geographer 46:46–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fensham R. J., R. J. Price. 2004. Ranking spring wetlands in the Great Artesian Basin of Australia using endemicity and isolation of plant species. Biological Conservation 119:41–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gluck M., R. Rempel, P. W. C. Uhlig. 1996. An evaluation of remote sensing for regional wetland mapping applications. Forest Research Report No. 137. Sault St Marie, Ontario, Canada, 33 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Haig S. M., D. W. Mehlman, L. W. Oring. 1998. Avian movements and wetland connectivity in landscape conservation. Conservation Biology 12:749–758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey K. R., J. E. Hill. 2001. Vegetation mapping of a tropical freshwater swamp in the Northern Territory, Australia: a comparison of aerial photography, Landsat TM and SPOT satellite imagery. International Journal of Remote Sensing 22:2911–2925

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson F. M., R. Chasan, J. E. Portolese, T. F. Hart Jr. 2002. Evaluation of SAR-optical imagery synthesis techniques in a complex coastal ecosystem. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 68:839–846

    Google Scholar 

  • Houhoulis P. F., W. K. Michener. 2000. Detecting wetland change: a rule-based approach using NWI and SPOT-XS data. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 66:205–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Joy M. K. 1999. Freshwater fish community structure in Taranaki: dams, diadromy or habitat quality? Master’s thesis, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand, 97 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Kentula M. E. 1997. A comparison of approaches to prioritizing sites for riparian restoration. Restoration Ecology 5:69–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingsford R. T., R. F. Thomas. 2002. Use of satellite image analysis to track wetland loss on the Murrumbidgee River floodplain in arid Australia, 1975−1998. Water Science and Technology 45:45–53

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kingsford R. T., K. Brandis, R. F. Thomas, P. Crighton, E. Knowles, E. Gale. 2004. Classifying landform at broad spatial scales: the distribution and conservation of wetlands in New South Wales, Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research 55:17–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klemas V. V. 2001. Remote sensing of landscape-level coastal environmental indicators. Environmental Management 27:47–57

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kushwaha P. S., R. S. Dwivedi, B. R. M. Rao. 2000. Evaluation of various digital image processing techniques for detection of coastal wetlands using ERS-1 SAR data. International Journal of Remote Sensing 21:565–579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leathwick J. R., J. M. Overton, M. McLeod. 2003. An environmental domain classification of New Zealand and its use as a tool for biodiversity management. Conservation Biology 17:1612–1623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee J. T., S. J. Woddy, S. Thompson. 2001. Targeting sites for conservation: using a patch-based ranking scheme to assess conservation potential. Journal of Environmental Management 61:367–380

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenmayer D. B., R. B. Cunningham, C. F. Donnelly, R. Lesslie. 2002. On the use of landscape surrogates as ecological indicators in fragmented forests. Forest Ecology and Management 159:203–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margules C., R. Pressey. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–253

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McAllister L. S., B. E. Peniston, S. G. Leibowitz, B. Abbruzzese, J. B. Hyman. 2000. A synoptic assessment for prioritizing wetland restoration efforts to optimize flood attenuation. Wetlands 20:70–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry for the Environment. 1997. The State of New Zealand’s Environment. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry for the Environment. 1998. Environmental performance indicators: proposals for terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitsch W. J., J. G. Gosselink. 2000. Wetlands, third edition. Wiley, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson S. A. C., P. A. Soranno, J. Qi. 2002. Land-cover change in upper Barataria basin estuary, Louisiana, 1972–1992: increases in wetland area. Environmental Management 29:716–727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozesmi S. L., M. E. Bauer. 2002. Satellite remote sensing of wetlands. Wetland Ecology and Management 10:381–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson M. S., R. C. Gatti. 1999. Prioritizing wetland restoration activity within a Wisconsin watershed using GIS modelling. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54:537–542

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty T. 1977. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15:234–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt K. S., A. K. Skidmore. 2003. Spectral discrimination of vegetation types in a coastal wetland. Remote Sensing of Environment 85:92–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd J. D., J. R. Dymond. 2003. Correcting satellite imagery for the variance of reflectance and illumination with topography. International Journal of Remote Sensing 24:3503–3514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson B. C., P. L. Matusik-Rowan, K. G. Boykin. 2002. Prioritizing conservation potential of arid-land montane natural springs and associated riparian areas. Journal of Arid Environments 50:527–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turpie J. K. 1995. Prioritizing South African estuaries for conservation: a practical example using waterbirds. Biological Conservation 74:175–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turpie J. K., J. B. Adams, A. Joubert, T. D. Harrison, B. M. Colloty, R. C. Maree, A. K. Whitfield, T. H. Wooldridge, S. J. Lamberth, S. Taljaard, et al. 2002. Assessment of the conservation priority status of South African estuaries for use in management and water allocation. Water South Africa (SA) 28:191–206

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Environment Programme/Global Resource Information Database. 1999. Coordinated monitoring of New Zealand wetlands, phase 1: a Ministry for the Environment SMF funded project. Monitoring changes in wetland extent: an environmental performance indicator for wetlands. Global Resource Information Database. UNEP, Christchurch, New Zealand

  • Vellidis G., M. C. Smith, S. G. Leibowitz, W. B. Ainslie, B. A. Pruitt. 2003. Prioritizing wetland restoration for sediment yield reduction: a conceptual model. Environmental Management 31:301–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whaley K. J., B. D. Clarkson, J. R. Leathwick. 1995. Assessment of the criteria used to determine ‘significance’ of natural areas in relation to section 6(c) of the Resource Management Act (1991). Report no LC9596/021. Landcare Research, Lincoln, New Zealand

  • Wright C. K. 2004. Remote sensing of wetlands in Yellowstone National Park. Doctoral thesis. Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research has been funded by the Foundation for Research Science and Technology (grant No C09X0115) and Horizons Regional Council, Palmerston North. We thank O. Ausseil for providing advice and data for this project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Landcare Research, Private Bag 11052, Palmerston North, New Zealand

    Anne-Gaelle E. Ausseil, John R. Dymond & James D. Shepherd

Authors
  1. Anne-Gaelle E. Ausseil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John R. Dymond
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. James D. Shepherd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anne-Gaelle E. Ausseil.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ausseil, AG.E., Dymond, J.R. & Shepherd, J.D. Rapid Mapping and Prioritisation of Wetland Sites in the Manawatu–Wanganui Region, New Zealand. Environmental Management 39, 316–325 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-005-0223-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-005-0223-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation