List of all metadata reports | This report's TOC | Previous Page | Next Page
System Title |
5.4 UNEP GRID New Zealand Wetland Classification |
|---|---|
| Keywords | Wetland classification; estuarine wetlands; marine wetlands; palustrine wetlands; lacustrine wetlands; riverine wetlands; geothermal wetlands; plutonic wetlands. |
| Description | This classification system includes the following hydro systems: estuarine,
marine, palustrine, lacustrine, riverine, frozen, geothermal and plutonic (underground).
It is a hierarchical system with the following structure:
The highest (least detailed) levels of the classification consist of the Hydrosystem (Level I); Sub-system (Level 1A) and Wetland Class (Level II). Within these levels there is a picklist of options based on salinity and broad hydrological setting (Level I); flooding regime (Level IA) and substrate, pH and/or chemistry (Level II). At the next level wetland form (Level IIA) describes the landform in which a wetland exists. This allows classification using geomorphic descriptas when salinity and flow regime are unknown. The structural class (Level III) describes the growth form of the vegetation or, in the case of open communities, the leading type of ground surface. The dominant cover (the most detailed level) describes the species composition of the dominant cover. While Level I would always be used to classify a wetland, the use of other levels can vary depending on the purpose for classifying a particular wetland. The classification is not equally developed. While the classification estuarine and palustrine wetlands has been trialled in a number of locations, the classifications for plutonic, geothermal, lacustrine, riverine and marine systems are tentative and require further work. |
| Original Purpose | This classification system is being designed to address the deficiencies in the Environmental Council Thompson wetland classification system (e.g. inconsistent development of different levels in the classification system) and to incorporate the best elements of new classification practice overseas. It is intended that changes would be evolutionary rather than revolutionary. This is because most palustrine wetlands have already been classified using the Environmental Council Thompson wetland classification. If a new classification system were to change the primary categories the ability to measure changes against an extensive baseline data set (WERI) compiled in the 1980s would be lost. It was also intended to provide a consistent national classification system to be used by all parties. This would facilitate monitoring of change in aerial extent and condition of every wetland category in New Zealand |
| Status | This classification system is still being refines. It will shortly be presented as a recommendation from a multi agency peer reviewed workshop based programme funded primarily by a MfE SMF Grant. |
| Organisation | Lincoln University |
| Jurisdiction | N/A |
| Contact person/position | Jonet Ward Senior lecturer |
| Address | Lincoln University P.O Box 84 Lincoln Phone +64 3 325 2811 Fax +64 3 325 3845 Email:WardJ@lincoln.ac.nz |
| Available format | Published reports to the SMF fund. Available in hard copy and electronic formats. |
| Access | Freely available |
| Geographical coverage | New Zealand |
Operational Specifications |
|
|---|---|
| Scale of Operation | Variable. A 1:250,000 scale can be used to map large wetlands within a region using Levels I and II; 1:50,000 scale may be used to map wetland class and vegetation structure (Levels II and III); while 1:10,000 may be used to map vegetation detail (Level IV). (Ward and Lambie, 1999). |
| GIS Compatibility | Requires good locational data |
| Relationship between levels in the classification system | This is a hierarchical system. At most levels in the hierarchy the categories are taxonomically (referenced to higher levels in the classification system) derived except where strong traditional typological (stand alone) categories were retained for continuity purposes. |
| Contributing databases/classification systems | New Zealand digital topographical database |
| Contributing database GIS compatibility | Yes |
| Relationship with other classification systems and spatial frameworks. | It is intended that it will relate to other parallel classification systems being developed elsewhere including:
It allows for the translation of categories to the Ramsar international classification system for wetlands. It refines the Department of Conservation Bay of Plenty Conservancy 1994 Aquatic Eco-Classification for Biological Distinctiveness. |
| Relationship with other databases | This classification system could be used to assess changes based on databases (including WERI) compiled using the Environmental Council Thompson Wetland Classification System. |
Current and emerging use for: |
|
|---|---|
| Assisting with determining historic state/ baseline | It could be used to compare recent measures with compatable recent historic data (eg WERI). |
| Assisting with determining current state/ baseline | It could be used to describe the current state of different types of wetlands |
| Asssisting with scenario building and modelling of possible futures | Possible - needs investigation |
| Risk Assesment | Limited |
| Monitoring site selection and sample design | It provides a logical basis for stratifying a representative sampling network for wetlands. |
| Aggregating and reporting data locally, regionally and/or nationally | If a consistent system is used it should be possible to report nationally, regionally and locally about wetlands. The classification provides a framework for aggregating data for different levels of reporting. |
Current use (who,level,why)
There have been trials in the Auckland, Waikato, Canterbury, Otago and West Coast Regions to pilot parts of the classification system and facilitate its refinement. Further testing has included parts of Marlborough District and a selection of 8 New Zealand estuaries.
User friendliness/public and decision maker understanding
Trained users in a wide variety of organisations could apply this system relatively easily.System strengths
- It is comprehensive in that it is intended to include all aquatic hydro systems.
- The categories can be translated to other classification systems. This allows international comparison.
- The classification system is simple.
- The classification system can be directly related to the 1980s wetland inventory baseline data (ie. WERI Database) based on equivalent classes.
- The system has been developed with the cooperation and involvement of a variety of agencies and so is likely to have widespread support.
- The system has been extensively trialed for palustrine and estuarine wetlands.
Current limitations of framework
- The fine scale boundaries cannot be generated from existing data sets or remote sensing. Field calibration is required. This would apply to all classification systems at a fine scale.
- The classfication for hydrosystems other than the well tested palustrine and estuarine wetland hydrosystems erquires further refinement and testing.
References
Ward, J.C.; Lambie, J.S. 1999 Co-ordinated monitoring of New Zealand Wetlands. A Ministry for the Environment SMF Funded Project, Final Report - Project Phase One. Lincoln Environmental: Canterbury. 47p.