List of all metadata reports |  This report's TOC |  Previous Page |  Next Page

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Environmental Performance Indicators Programme - Classification Systems, Databases and Spatial Frameworks

The Ministry for the Environment (MfE) is reviewing environmental classification systems, databases and spatial frameworks in terms of their utility for monitoring and reporting Environmental Performance Indicators (EPI).

This document reviews technical and management aspects of classification systems and spatial frameworks that are potentially relevant to indicators for:

Relevant databases have been reviewed separately (Froude, 1999).

Classification systems, databases and spatial frameworks for the marine environment are reviewed in seperate reports (Froude 2000(a), 2000(b)).

 

1.2 Purpose And Scope Of This Report

This report reviews New Zealand classification systems and spatial frameworks that could potentially be used in the EPI programme for land, water and terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity. It has been prepared through a process of:

 

Part One of this Report provides an introduction to the concepts of classification systems and spatial frameworks and the uses to which they may be put in the context of the EPI Programme.

Part Two is a directory of classification systems, and spatial frameworks comprising a 'stock-take' of each system according to the standard set of attributes defined in Table 1.

The spatial frameworks and classification systems that have been reviewed and presented within Part Two of this Report are a selection only. They have been selected for one or more of the following reasons:

At the time this report was prepared several systems were undergoing active development. The entries for these systems (eg. Land Environments New Zealand) were updated in 2002. Systems for which active development had not begun at the time this document was prepared (eg. New Zealand Threat Classification) are not included in this document.

Classification systems that have been subsumed in later systems have also not been included. It is important to note that the brief for this review excluded the review of classification systems and spatial frameworks used by other countries. Some international literature has been reviewed during the development of some of the new systems (e.g. NIWA river habitat classification, and the UNEP GRID classification for New Zealand wetlands).

1.3 Methodology

The following methodology was used for preparing this report:

  1. Confirmation of classification systems to be reviewed.
  2. Confirmation of questions to be asked of each system.
  3. Identification of proponents and critics of each classification system, i.e. those people who are or have been involved in either system development, use or modification.
  4. Meeting with proponents and critics to discuss specific systems in terms of the following standard set attributes (See Table 1 for attribute definitions):

5. This report was written using the attribute template included in Table 1.

6. Draft report contents were discussed with a number of those people who were initially interviewed and/or involved in developing the systems reviewed.

7. The report was then peer reviewed by the contact person for each spatial framework and classification system and revised again by the primary author.

Table 1: Attribute Template for Classification Systems and Spatial Frameworks

Metadata

Title Name commonly used to refer to classification system.
Key words Open list - not constrained by a 'pick' list.
Description A summary description of the classification system and how it works.
Original purpose The purpose for which the classification system was originally developed.
Status Provides the date of development and completion and identifies whether the classification system is still being developed.
Organisation The business name of the organisation or company responsible for development or stewardship. Some classification systems have been developed by individuals not aligned to a current organisation, and the system has been published in independent journals. Where this has resulted in the system being associated with that individual only, no organisation is recorded in the metadata.
Jurisdiction The name of the district, region or country in which the steward of the classification system resides.
Contact person/position This is a current contact person which may or may not be the developer of the system.
Address For the contact person/position. Includes phone, fax and email where available.
Available format Identifies whether the classification system is available in hard copy or electronic formats, and if electronic, which software packages are used.
Access Identifies if the classification system is freely available for use or if access is restricted in any way (legal or financial).
Geographical coverage The area over which the classification system applies (e.g. national or specific to one region/district).

Operational Specifications

Scale of operation The scale(s) at which the classification systems may be used. Where possible the scale is quantified (e.g. 1:50,000)
GIS compatibility Whether the system can be used on GIS.
Relationship between levels in the classification system Many classification systems have more than one level. This section records the relationship between the levels, e.g. hierarchical system, no hierarchy.
Contributing databases/classification systems The databases and/or other classification systems that contribute information to the classification system or spatial framework, and how these relate to each other.
Contributing database GIS compatibility Whether or not the contributing databases are geographically referenced and/or already digitised onto GIS.
Relationship with other classification systems and spatial frameworks. Whether the classification system is used together with another system to provide a framework for a particular specified purpose.
Relationship with other databases This is the relationship of the classification system to other environmental databases. This relationship is usually not applicable to spatial frameworks.

Current and emerging use for:

Assisting with determining historic state/baseline Whether the classification system can assist in determining historic baselines of environmental quantity/quality (extent/condition). E.g. pre-human vegetation.
Assisting with determining current state/baseline Whether the classification system can assist in determining current baselines of environmental quantity/quality (extent/condition). E.g. extent of indigenous vegetation remaining in the year 2000.
Assisting with scenario building and modelling of possible futures Whether the classification system can assist with identifying the likely effects of activity/environmental changes on environmental quantity/quality (extent/condition). E.g. given the spread of pest 'x', it can be expected to have 'y' impact on the distribution of species 'z'.
Risk assessment Whether the classification system can assist with identifying areas at risk under certain types of use/management.
Monitoring site selection and sample design Whether the classification system can assist with the selection of the number and location of sites for monitoring indicators.
Aggregating and reporting data locally, regionally and/or nationally Whether the classification system can provide a mechanism for aggregating and interpreting data from sites in different districts and regions so that it may be reported at a national level in a meaningful way.

Current use (who, level, why)

Identifies:

User friendliness/public and decision maker understanding

Whether the classification system is easily understood by those without inside technical knowledge.

System strengths

The advantages of the classification system. E.g. whether it is easily understood, has an existing high level of use, would require little modification to be useful to the EPI programme.

Current limitations of framework

The disadvantages as above.

References

The documents used to review the classification system in question.

Detailed Description (where necessary)

Some classification systems are very complex and additional descriptions over and above that provided in the Metadata summary are required. While these were included in the original hardcopy report, it has only been possible to include electronic links and text prepared specifically for the original report in the electronic version of the document.

Note: N/A means not applicable