creating ecologically based land use and habitat maps quickly and cheaply to support conservation...

Creating Ecologically Based Land Use and HabitatMaps Quickly and Cheaply to SupportConservation Planning at Local Scales: A NewZealand Examplegeor_683 99..111

CLAIRE FREEMAN1*, RYAN D. CLARK2 and YOLANDA VAN HEEZIK3

1Department of Geography, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, University of Otago postcode 9054, New Zealand.2Environment Waikato, PO Box 4010, Hamilton East 3247, New Zealand.3Department of Zoology, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, Environment Waikato post code3247, New Zealand.*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Received 9 March 2010; Revised 7 September 2010; Accepted 1 October 2010

AbstractEffective planning to support and enhance ecological values in sites of conserva-tion interest requires accurate, comprehensive and detailed ecologically basedmaps and data, not only for the conservation site but for the wider landscape inwhich such sites are situated. In this paper we present an efficient and low costmethod for combining appropriate technologies and available data to producesuch maps at a landscape level. This method is described and evaluated using acase study of a land use and habitat map, with an associated geographic infor-mation system (GIS). The map was created for the district of Dunedin, NewZealand, an area of approximately 3340 km2. This paper demonstrates how themap can be adapted for use by small, locally based conservation organisations thattypically do not have the resources to obtain detailed, consistent and comprehen-sive spatial data for the areas they manage. The example of Orokonui Ecosanc-tuary is used to illustrate the potential applications of the map including mappingassets and habitats within a site and for exploring the relationship between theEcosanctuary’s internal and external habitats. External habitats can form a vitalhabitat network for many of the endangered species being reintroduced into theEcosanctuary as well as a source of threats through potential reinvasion by pestsand land use change. Though the mapping method presented in this paper is notnecessarily new, it demonstrates the potential for utilising advances in mappingtechniques and available data sets to offer a pragmatic support mechanism ofpractical value for small conservation organisations.

KEY WORDS Habitats; mapping; GIS; Ecosanctuary; New Zealand

IntroductionEffective ecological planning is directly depen-dent on the availability and quality of the under-lying ecological data, primarily data on thelocation, and size and quality of habitats. The

availability of such spatial data can be limitedand, where available, are often of insufficient orinconsistent quantity and or quality, or at toocoarse a scale or resolution to be useful at localscales, such as across or within a territorial local

99Geographical Research • February 2011 • 49(1):99–111doi: 10.1111/j.1745-5871.2010.00683.x

authority or district. Small, locally based conser-vation organisations typically do not have theresources to obtain detailed, consistent and com-prehensive spatial data for the areas they manage.In this paper, we contemplate the potential forinexpensive and effective acquisition of compre-hensive and robust spatial data for informing theprocess of ecological planning and conservationat local scales. We ask whether useful, ecologi-cally based land use and habitat maps can bedeveloped quickly and with limited resources.

Ecologically based mapping of landscapeswithin a limited budget is not a new challenge.When endeavouring to map the ecology of citiesin Germany, Wittig and Schreiber (1983, 58)asked ‘But what is to be done, if planning is inprogress and time is running out and – in addition– little money is available for adequate investi-gations?’ In response they developed their own‘Quick method’, which was confined in its appli-cation to open space in the urban context. Theecologically based land use and habitat map pre-sented in this paper addresses a different focus –the development of a comprehensive land useand habitat map that covers a much wider land-scape. It explores the potential value of remotesensing developments for ecologically basedlandscape mapping and conservation planning ata district level, which includes both the urban andrural area. This method is described and evalu-ated using a case study of a land use and habitatmap developed for the Dunedin City TerritorialAuthority in New Zealand (henceforth referredto as the Dunedin district, see Figure 1). Theavailable budget for the project was $NZ5000(i.e. £2775 or $AUD3923).

Although the mapping method presented inthis paper is not necessarily new, it demonstratesthe potential for utilising advances in mappingtechniques and available data to offer pragmatic,multiuse support mechanisms for small conser-vation organisations. This value comes from theprovision of land use and habitat maps derived ata scale and resolution detailed enough to be ofpractical use. To plan effectively for the conser-vation of species within a particular site, usuallya reserve or designated open space, conserva-tion organisations need to take into account notonly the habitats, species, and managementneeds of their own site but how these relate tothe land use and habitat character of the adja-cent land. Few species can meet their needsonly within the conservation site, or remainunaffected by conditions and activities outsidethe site. However, lack of resources tends to

mean that conservation organisations are unableto devote scarce resources to looking beyondthe confines of their own site, possibly to thelong-term detriment of the species they areendeavouring to support. The Dunedin land useand habitat map could provide an importantresource for such organisations in looking atwider habitat and species relationships.

This paper begins with an assessment of therole of habitat maps in conservation planning. Itthen describes the development of the Dunedinland use and habitat map, including an assess-ment of the potential benefits and challengesassociated with the use of remote sensing tech-niques to map detailed and continuous habitatdata at a local scale, and across a variety of land-scapes. An application of the map is discussedwith the example of Orokonui Ecosanctuary(http://www.orokonui.org.nz/index.php), a localconservation initiative that could benefit fromthe Dunedin habitat and land-use map to enhanceits own planning and management. Finally,the paper assesses the value and applicationof the Dunedin mapping method for widerconservation.

Habitat mapsHabitat maps can aid in understanding andassessing the ecological values and structurespresent in a landscape, and in targeting sites forconservation and restoration attention (Potschinand Haines-Young, 2006; Mortberg et al., 2007;Vogt et al., 2007; 2009; Dymond et al., 2008;Thackway and Lesslie, 2008; Ewers et al., 2009).Monitoring change is another key contributionof habitat mapping (Weiers et al., 2004). Someapplications of habitat maps include: identifyingthe presence of areas with high ecological value(e.g. forest remnants), areas with ecologicalpotential (e.g. ecological corridors), naturallyregenerating sites (e.g. commonly found ingullies in New Zealand lowlands), and naturalhabitats under threat (e.g. wetlands impacted byaquifer extractions).

Habitat maps and databases can also provideecological data that are a necessary prerequisitefor a number of landscape evaluation methodolo-gies, including ecologically sustainable land-scape assessment. A sustainable landscape isdefined as one in which the ‘spatial pattern ofecosystems should permit populations of tar-geted species to survive’ (Temorhuizen et al.,2007, 374). This is a highly pertinent goal inthe Dunedin district context, where indigenous

100 Geographical Research • February 2011 • 49(1):99–111

© 2010 The AuthorsGeographical Research © 2010 Institute of Australian Geographers

species have become largely alienated from theirown historic landscapes, and where the successof any reintroductions to protected areas will beheavily dependent on the presence of a wider,ecologically sympathetic landscape.

The mapping of habitat data is generally anincreasing focus in landscape ecology research,especially the integration of remote sensing tech-niques into landscape mapping (Alexander andMillington, 2000; McDermid et al., 2005; Foody,2008; Gillespie et al., 2008). The potential forenhanced and rapid habitat mapping from remotesensing and automated techniques is particularlyexciting as Gillespie et al. state:

The main attractions of remote sensing as asource of information on biodiversity are that

it offers an inexpensive means of derivingcomplete spatial coverage of environmentalinformation for large areas in a consistentmanner that may be updated regularly(Gillespie et al., 2008, 204).

However, despite its potential, some argue that inrelation to studies of biodiversity, this potentialhas been underused (e.g. Foody, 2008). Thespatial focus in landscape ecology has been pri-marily concentrated on specific sites, ecosys-tems, or directed towards specific ecologicalneeds, for example, the identification of reserves(Tole, 2006), assessment of avian and beetlehabitats (Barbaro et al., 2007; Levin et al.,2009), and identification of habitat linkages(Drielsma et al., 2007).

Figure 1 Location map for Dunedin and places mentioned in this paper.

C. Freeman et al.: Creating Ecologically Based Land Use and Habitat Maps 101


The availability of spatial mapping tools suchas remote sensing has contributed significantly tothe increasing use of habitat mapping, particu-larly its extension to large-scale areal mapping(Wyatt, 2000). This extension has added to thecomplexity of defining habitat mapping, andindeed defining the term habitat itself. A detailedassessment of the complex application of‘habitat’ and ‘habitat mapping’ terminology isencapsulated in the paper by McDermid et al.(2005). They note the blurring of the distinctionbetween habitat as a species specific concept,where habitat is defined in relation to the specificresources required by an identifiable organism,and habitat as it relates primarily to an area ofland or water, which is commonly used in land-scape and regional-scale habitat studies. Theyfurther identify a range of different definitionsused to describe habitat. In this paper, we followthe definition of habitat used by Hall et al. (1997)(as cited in McDermid et al., (2005, 452) where:

Habitats are the resources and conditionspresent in an area that produce occupancy,including survival and reproduction, by agiven organism . . . the sum of specificresources that are needed by an organism.

In our study, where the aim is to provide full arealcoverage of habitats and land use across theDunedin district, this results in the inclusion ofsome built areas, for example, ‘commercial’. Inthese instances the built function is the primaryland use of the area rather than its habitat type.However, these areas can still provide features ofvarying degrees of naturalness used by somespecies (e.g. buildings and ornamental trees usedas bird nesting sites). To ensure full areal cover-age, these areas are thus included in ourmapping. In this study, therefore, although weuse the generic term ‘land use and habitat’ map,we recognise that not all land types identified arestrictly speaking ‘habitats’ as defined by refer-ence to specific organisms, and indeed may rep-resent assemblages of vegetational and builtforms, a combination of which may be used byspecific organisms or species.

Background: Dunedin’s ecology and need forcomplete ecological dataMuch of New Zealand’s lowland landscapeshave been radically altered, with the limitedindigenous vegetation remaining subject toongoing clearance (Meurk and Swaffield, 2000;Freeman and Buck, 2003; Walker et al., 2004;Meurk and Hall, 2006). In the south-eastern

region of the South Island, where the Dunedindistrict is located, the percentage of the areacovered by indigenous habitats was estimatedto be only 1.4% in 1998 (Department ofConservation-Ministry for the Environment,2000). To assist the Dunedin City Council withthe management of its highly pressured biodiver-sity resources, the need for comprehensive eco-logical data, especially for its lowland habitats, isimperative (Walker et al., 2004; Dunedin CityCouncil, 2007).

In 2007, the Dunedin City Council issued itsfirst Biodiversity Strategy. It identified its firstchallenge as follows:

Challenge 1 – establishing the extent and con-dition of indigenous biodiversity.While someof Dunedin’s more significant and iconicspecies and habitats are known and moni-tored, such as the yellow-eyed penguin(Megadyptes antipodes), the Northern RoyalAlbatross (Diomedea epomophora sanfordi),and the Town Belt, many areas in Dunedinhave not been surveyed by ecologists(Dunedin City Council, 2007, 11).

The Strategy then goes on to identify the value ofecological information:

It is important that, as a city, we establish howmuch indigenous flora and fauna remains,whether biodiversity is increasing or decreas-ing, the ecological condition of the remainingareas and the interactions between differentecosystems. Such information is vital forestablishing targets for protection, settingmanagement priorities, restoration andenhancement programmes, opportunities forcommunity participation and providing acces-sible information to landowners. . . . (Dune-din City Council, 2007, 11)

In New Zealand, ecological information isreadily available at a national level from severaldatabases. Two key national databases are: LandEnvironments of New Zealand – which is basedon environmental variables such as soil, slope,and temperature; and the Land Cover Database 2(LCDB2), which maps the country according to43 classes of land cover defined primarily byvegetation. These databases were intended toprovide support for the protection and enhance-ment of biodiversity, environmental reporting,and resource management planning (Leathwicket al., 2003). They have been used successfully ina number of studies, including assessments of thecharacter of natural landscapes (Brabyn, 2005),



estimating the proportion of indigenous habitatsremaining in New Zealand cities (Clarkson et al.,2007), and prioritising site-based conservationfor forest remnants (Dymond et al., 2008).

At the local level (e.g. Dunedin district), eco-logical data are often available for only a fewspecific sites. In the Dunedin district, ecologicaldata are held by a number of organisations, suchas the Department of Conservation, the RoyalForest and Bird Society, the Otago RegionalCouncil, the Dunedin City Council, local Maoriiwi (the indigenous ‘tangata whenua’ people ofthe land), and individual landowners. This data isnot always available to external users. Apart fromland administered by the Department of Conser-vation and other public and/or private reserves,there is a dearth of data and lack of protection ofnatural habitats and species. Furthermore, there

is a scarcity of ecological data for natural areasthat are not primarily indigenous, even thoughsuch land may be very important for supportingsome indigenous species.

Issues around data completeness and availabil-ity are made more complex by the governancestructure around land in New Zealand. Figure 2illustrates a local example where an estuarinewetland adjacent to the Dunedin harbour is underthe aegis of the Department of Conservation, butthe harbour and its adjacent land is primarily theresponsibility of the Otago Regional Council,with landward developments under the overallcontrol of the Dunedin City Council. In addition,some land is under private ownership and thearea incorporates sites that are of historic,cultural and/or practical significance for Maori,including areas important for gathering

Figure 2 Responsibilities for land management and use in a selected part of the Otago Harbour (Aerial photo sourced DunedinCity Council, 2007, http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/council-online/webmaps).



‘kaimoana’ – sea food. Each of these organisa-tions and interest groups has its own databases,strategies, management plans, and personnel formanaging the land under its control. Thisexample therefore illustrates the urgent need toaddress the current fragmentation of data and topromote coordinated and integrated ecologicalplanning.

Furthermore, the lack of data and fragmenta-tion of data is particularly problematic in theperi-urban area, where development pressuresare greatest, and where a number of conservationpriorities have been identified by organisationssuch as the Yellow Eyed Penguin Trust, OtagoNatural History Trust (responsible for theOrokonui Ecosanctuary development) and theDepartment of Conservation. Against this back-ground, the 2008 land use and habitat map wasdeveloped.

Development of a land use and habitat mapfor the Dunedin district

Background and objectivesA project to develop a comprehensive land useand habitat map for the urbanised area of the cityof Dunedin was completed in 2003 (Freeman andBuck, 2003). In the development of this map,land use and habitat data were combined to dis-tinguish between sites on the basis of vegetationcharacteristics as well as function (e.g. grasslandhabitat used for amenity purposes such as a golfcourse). The map was created in a geographicinformation system (GIS) (ArcGIS) by hand dig-itising polygons that were validated with fieldsurveys, which proved costly in terms of bothtime and resources required. The extent of theresulting map was limited to the immediate urba-nised city boundary, covering an area represent-ing just 2% of the total area managed by theDunedin City Council (Figure 1).

In ecological terms, the limitations of theurban area map are considerable, largely becausespecies and habitats present in the urban area areinextricably linked to the surrounding rural area,and are often directly dependent on the rural areafor survival. Furthermore, the boundary betweenurban and rural areas, and between protected andunprotected land, is often artificial and meaning-less for many species and their supportinghabitats.

Despite its limitations, the Dunedin urban areamap and associated GIS database has provided avaluable biodiversity data resource for the city,and this value is beginning to be proven in devel-

oping research in urban ecology (Freeman et al.,2007; van Heezik et al., 2008). In 2005–2006,the urban area map was used in conjunction withobject-oriented image classification of high reso-lution satellite imagery to classify vegetationcommunities in the Dunedin urban area, and tomap the extent, distribution and density ofprivate gardens (Mathieu et al., 2007a; 2007b).Also in 2006, a $NZ5000 grant was awarded forthe publication of a paper on the creation of theurban area map and its applications (Freemanet al., 2007). The success of these projects, alongwith the fortunate acquisition of the grant andnew high resolution aerial photography of theDunedin district, provided the impetus for a newproject to map the remaining 98% (i.e. approxi-mately 3340 km2) of the Dunedin district.

The project to extend the urban area map to adistrict-wide land use and habitat map had thefollowing aims:

1. To create a comprehensive land use andhabitat map and spatial database that coveredthe whole Dunedin district, not just areas ofknown ecological interest;

2. To create a map at a scale that reflects thecomplex mixture of exotic and indigenousspecies, and habitat structures found inDunedin’s predominantly lowland landscape(existing classifications tend to reflect some-what idealised, mainly indigenous habitattypologies);

3. To achieve objectives 1 and 2 within a con-strained budget and timeframe (a scenario thatlocal conservation organisations and govern-ment agencies commonly face with projectsof similar scope or scale), and

4. To create a spatial database that can be easilyaccessed, adapted, and updated by differentusers, particularly users with little or no GISexperience.

Methods and resultsInitially, we sought to derive the Dunedin districtland use and habitat map using semi-automatedobject-oriented image classification of recentlycaptured (2006–2007) high-resolution (75 cm)aerial photography. We applied this techniquewith the computer program, eCognition™(Definiens® Imaging, GmbH), which was thesame program used in the urban area vegetationmapping studies by Mathieu et al. (2007a;2007b). Unfortunately, the semi-automatedobject-oriented technique proved to be difficultand inefficient for two main reasons: (1) the com-



puter hardware available for the project was inad-equate for processing the large amount of data;and (2) although the technique often delineateddistinct areas with a consistently high level ofaccuracy, its precision was less consistent forhighly heterogeneous areas, such as scrub andshrubland vegetation, and in areas whereshadows occurred in the imagery. This led tomanual editing of many of the resulting poly-gons, a similar problem to that encountered byMathieu et al. (2007b) and Bock (2003).

At this stage of the project, half the budget hadbeen expended with only 0.6% of the total area(2789 ha) mapped. In order to achieve a full cov-erage land use and habitat map of the districtwith the remaining budget, we discontinued theuse of the semi-automated object-oriented imageclassification technique and derived the rest ofthe map from the LCDB2. This enabled theproject to progress forward effectively, particu-larly because the LCDB2 was freely availableand provided an established classification that wecould work from. There were, however, somelimitations to the database that needed to beaddressed.

The LCDB2 was derived from 15 m resolutionsatellite imagery captured in 2001–2002, andwas designed to be used at scales smaller than1:25 000 (e.g. 1:50 000, New Zealand ClimateChange Office and Ministry for the Environment,2004). The age and relatively coarse resolution ofLCDB2 meant that when used at a local scale(e.g. 1:5 000), accuracy and consistency wasfound to be highly variable and out of date insome areas of the Dunedin district. This wasespecially evident in landscapes comprised of agreater diversity of land uses and habitats, suchas the peri-urban area (Figure 3). Therefore,much of the remaining project time and budgetwas expended on manually improving the accu-racy and currency of as much of the data aspossible. This was concentrated in the peri-urbanarea, and areas of recognised importance forbiodiversity and ecology, particularly the OtagoPeninsula and the Orokonui Ecosanctuary.

A total of 41 classes were identified in theDunedin district land use and habitat map. Theseincluded a combination of the 30 classes identi-fied in the urban area map, and 11 classes fromthe LCDB2 (Figure 4). To add to the comprehen-

Figure 3 Section of the peri-urban area of the map, with selected habitat classes highlighted to demonstrate some of the errorsand inaccuracies in the existing Land Cover Database that required manual editing to improve accuracy (Aerial photo sourcedfrom Dunedin City Council, 2007). Grassland and scrub/shrubland habitat polygons outlined in white have been madetransparent to reveal the vegetation evident on the underlying image. 1 = Pasture/grassland incorrectly classified as exoticscrub/shrubland. 2 = Scrub and bush incorrectly classified as pasture/grassland. 3 = Mismatch especially on the margins can beseen in several vegetation polygons.



Figure 4 Extract from the map legend showing habitat classes used in the 2008 Dunedin land use and habitat map.



siveness and utility of the map and database, thefollowing additional attribute and spatial datawere incorporated:

1. Open space land use data provided by theDunedin City Council, including data onparks, reserves, schools, sports fields, and rec-reation areas;

2. Dunedin District Plan zoning data, whichhelps identify the type of land use likely tooccur in a particular area, for example, if anarea is in an ‘industrial’ or ‘residential’ zone,or ‘a site of significant conservation value’ or‘landscape conservation area’.

3. Topo-cadastral data such as highways,railway lines, airports, runways and tracks,rivers, lakes, and swamps. These features areespecially important for orientation and iden-tification of locations when using the finalmaps, and

4. Digital Terrain Models (DTM): two DTMsderived at 100 m and 25 m resolution (for useat small and large scales, respectively) wereincluded to aid with visual displays of terrainrelief, which was particularly useful for fea-tures such as gullies where remnant indig-enous vegetation often occurs.

The final and continuing stage in the develop-ment of the map is the identification and correc-tion of classification errors, and updatingchanges in land use and habitat. The accuracy ofthe LCDB2 data is greatest in simple landscapeswith little heterogeneity, such as the predomi-nantly agricultural plains and open high countrywhere sheep farming predominates, and theaccuracy is poorest in complex, highly heteroge-neous landscapes, particularly peri-urban areas.

Applications and value of the map:Orokonui EcosanctuaryThe Dunedin land use and habitat map is anongoing project. In addition to providing a base-line data set that organisations can use to mapand record their own specific habitat and speciesinformation, this data can be integrated into thewider map and used to identify the following:

1. Habitats and sites appropriate for particularspecies;

2. Habitat changes by comparing current datawith pre-existing LCDB data;

3. Relationships between habitats within andexternal to a conservation site;

4. Existing and potential threats to a conserva-tion site from adjacent land such as residential

developments, land clearance, or encroach-ment from pest species such as gorse (Ulexeuropaeus);

5. Complementary habitats, such as forest orbush areas for birds, and

6. Existing and potential ecological corridors.

Orokonui Ecosanctuary (307 ha) is one of anumber of fenced sanctuaries being developed inNew Zealand. The Ecosanctuary is surroundedby a pest-proof fence and all mammalian pestspecies, primarily goats Capra hircus, possumsTrichosurus vulpecula, cats Felis catus, ratsRattus spp. and mustelids Mustela spp. have beenremoved from inside the fenced area. Pestremovals are accompanied by habitat rehabilita-tion and, as appropriate, endangered species arerelocated into the Ecosanctuary. Some speciessuch as the flightless kiwi (Apteryx spp.) willremain within the Ecosanctuary confines otherssuch as Kaka (Nestor meridionalis), and Hihi/Stitch bird (Notiomystis cincta) will fly outsidethe reserve and use external habitats notablyforest. If relocation of species into the reserve issuccessful the intention is that there will berepopulation of surrounding areas. Sympatheticmanagement of surrounding areas will be animportant long-term consideration and a neces-sity if repopulation is to be successful.

The University of Otago was approached bythe Ecosanctuary to assist with the process ofdeveloping a GIS database. The database wasseen as necessary to support management andplanning at the Ecosanctuary and to be used formonitoring and evaluating changes over time.The Ecosanctuary management has data onhabitats, some species data, assets such astracks, walkways, culverts, seating areas, andentrances, and management data such as birdcount sites and location of pest traps (Figure 5).The data are recorded in several diverse docu-ments or as an individual’s personal knowledge.Although the Ecosanctuary management hascomputer access it does not have its own GISsoftware or in house GIS expertise. Externallyavailable data such as LCDB data and Depart-ment of Conservation data are at too coarse ascale and too fragmented to provide an appro-priate basis for ecological planning and man-agement of the Ecosanctuary.

An open source software, Quantum GIS(http://www.qgis.org), was used to supply thedata in a useable form to the Ecosanctuary. TheDunedin map was created with ArcGIS, which isnot free, but is compatible with Quantum GIS.



The Ecosanctuary was provided with base layersshowing their basic assets and habitat data. TheEcosanctuary is small enough to use this GISdatabase to manage and maintain their assets.Software would be of no cost (using QuantumGIS), but some training in its use is necessary.Terrain and 3-D models of the Ecosanctuarywere produced using ArcGIS 9 (see Figure 6).Quantum GIS does not currently have thecapability at this stage to generate 3-D models,but as it is an open source project, it is regularlybeing improved. The terrain and 3-D modellingallows more realistic terrain maps to be producedand planning to be undertaken. These can beuseful in several ways, for example, planning forbird surveys which need to take into account theadditional time needed for volunteers to accesstheir counting sites due to steep hills; monitoringof culverts in relation to heavy rainfall events;and for creating topographically convincingvisualisation models for assessing alternativedevelopment scenarios. The database is com-patible with data used in other environmentalorganisations and can incorporate data fromthese organisations as it becomes available. Forexample, when the city council updates its aerialphotos or produces a new city plan, which wouldinclude any land use zone changes. Finally andpossibly most importantly, the database wouldenable the Ecosanctuary to record and monitor

ecological changes over time, and to plan itsvegetation regeneration and associated speciesrecovery programmes more effectively.

Ideally over the next year the Ecosanctuarymanagement will continue to develop an effec-tive system using the GIS database provided.This would allow for skills and capacity devel-opment and embed the GIS database within theongoing management and planning activities ofthe Ecosanctuary. The availability of the Dunedindatabase, which was adapted to meet the needs ofthe Ecosanctuary, meant that the Ecosanctuarydid not need to use its scarce resources to employa GIS consultant to produce useful maps. Thefinal costs for the total 2008 Dunedin mapping

Figure 6 Extract from the Orokonui Ecosanctuary databasehighlighting track locations in relation to terrain.

Figure 5 Extract from the Orokonui Ecosanctuary database showing pest traps, tracking tunnels, and track detail.



project were $NZ6500, $NZ1500 over the origi-nal budget. It cost NZ$800 to produce theOrokonui GIS database, which is readily updat-able and adaptable and should be within theexisting capacity of the Ecosanctuary to manage.

Conclusion: the Dunedin method,an inexpensive and useful tool forconservation planningThe developments in automated land cover/vegetation/habitat mapping and predictive eco-logical modelling are exciting and increasinglywell documented in the literature, giving theimpression that such techniques are widely avail-able and readily usable. This impression, weargue, is misleading. Automated techniquesrequire dedicated expertise and resources, and assuch are not yet sufficiently accessible for useoutside of dedicated research groups and well-resourced laboratory facilities. The higher orderremote sensing potential alluded to by Foody(2008), and habitat and species modellingcapacities discussed by Gillespie et al. (2008),still remain beyond the capacities of non-expertorganisations to access. These methodologieswill likely become more accessible and userfriendly, and may eventually make much of themanual input (or digitisation) of data into a geo-graphic information system unnecessary.

At present though, automated methods usedon their own are not sufficiently accurate or userfriendly to be easily applied, and considerableresource and time intensive data input andcorrection is still required. Small, locally basedconservation organisations typically lack thedata, expertise, and financial and technologicalresources to benefit from these advanced devel-opments. They can, however, still benefit fromadvances in remote sensing and GIS. Aerial pho-tographs and satellite imagery are becomingcheaper and more available. Google Earth is agood example of the advances in free access to(albeit limited in quality) aerial imagery. Simi-larly, comprehensive and accurate land coverdatabases are becoming more available andwidespread in their use.

Given that smaller conservation organisationswill be limited in their access to land use andhabitat data, whose creation demands the use ofadvanced techniques and spatial tools, alternativemethods of data acquisition are necessary. TheDunedin 2008 land use and habitat map methodis one available option. It shows that by judiciousinclusion of existing land cover databases, com-bined with standard GIS software and high-

quality, up-to-date aerial imagery, sufficientlydetailed and useful maps can be produced with alimited budget.

The Dunedin map is an important advance forthree main reasonsLand use and habitat typology Existing vegeta-tion and habitat typologies inadequately reflectNew Zealand’s complex mix of indigenous andexotic vegetation. Existing classifications suchas those used in the LCDB2 do not apply wellto complex and/or highly heterogeneous land-scapes, such as urban and peri-urban areas. TheDunedin typology developed in 2003, and furtherdeveloped and applied in the 2008 map, is advan-tageous because it is compatible with existingdata, but is also an improvement as it reflects therange of indigenous and exotic habitat classesmore precisely than those used in existing datasets (e.g. LCDB2). When tested at Orokonui, theclasses identified in the Dunedin map proved tobe more accurate and appropriate than the origi-nal LCDB2 classes. The classification used in theDunedin map has applicability for land use andhabitat mapping across New Zealand, especiallyfor urban areas.

Landscape scale data The map makes availablecontinuous data on habitats and land use across avariety of landscapes. It enables conservationplanning to take into account corridors and con-nectivity across a broad range of landscapes,for example, urban–peri-urban–rural, lowland–upland and wetland/coastal–dryland. This facili-tates conservation planning of individual siteswith reference to their wider context, allowingidentification of ecological support areas outsidethe site of focus, but that are important for mobilespecies and regeneration. Many conservationorganisations lack this wider ecological data.

Wider application The Dunedin map demon-strates that it is too early for less well-resourcedgroups to take advantage of developments inremote sensing for spatial mapping of habitats.However, reduced costs, greater availability, andenhanced user-friendliness of GIS (e.g. QuantumGIS), data sets (e.g. LCDB2 and City Councilplanning data), and aerial imagery provide abasis from which good databases at scales appro-priate to both landscape and individual site con-servation planning can be constructed. Theirenhanced availability is not peculiar to NewZealand but reflective of the growing openness ofGIS and spatial data internationally. Even in the



time between the completion of the urban areaDunedin map (2003) and the district-wide map(2008), the advances have been remarkable,leading to the much more rapid, less resourceintense and cheaper production of the 2008 map.

In this paper, we have shown that existing datasets, together with the careful use of easily acces-sible GIS tools and aerial imagery can be com-bined to map valuable ecological data at a scaleand resolution that can positively contribute toconservation planning. As long as they are, or canbe geo-referenced, data from different organisa-tions and of different types can be combined intoa single-composite database. Although under-taken for only a small portion of the map, theapplication of semi-automated object orientedclassification did produce accurate and detaileddelineations of different habitats. In the future,automated mapping of habitat data derived fromsatellite imagery and the benefits of softwaresuch as eCognition are likely to be more readilyavailable to organisations such as the OrokonuiEcosanctuary. In the meantime, the Dunedin mapprovides a powerful tool to assist in curbing thedecline of indigenous species and their support-ing habitats in the diverse landscapes of theDunedin district.

REFERENCESAlexander, R. and Millington, A.C. (eds), 2000: Vegetation

Mapping From Patch to Planet. John Wiley and Sons,Chichester.

Barbaro, L., Rossi, J.P., Vetillard, F., Nezan, J. and Jactel, H.,2007: The spatial distribution of birds and carabid beetlesin pine plantation forests: the role of landscape composi-tion and structure. Journal of Biogeography 34, 652–664.

Bock, M., 2003: Remote sensing and GIS- based techniquesfor the classification and monitoring of biotopes. Journalof Nature Conservation 11, 145–155.

Brabyn, L., 2005: Solutions for characterizing natural land-scapes in New Zealand using geographical informationsystems. Journal of Nature Conservation 76, 23–34.

Clarkson, B.D., Wehi, P.M. and Brabyn, L.K., 2007: A spatialanalysis of indigenous cover patterns and implications forecological restoration in urban centres, New Zealand.Urban Ecosystems 10, 441–457.

Department of Conservation- Ministry for the Environment,2000: The New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy. Depart-ment of Conservation-Ministry for the Environment,Wellington.

Drielsma, M., Manion, G. and Ferrier, S., 2007: The spatiallinks tool: automated mapping of habitat linkages in var-iegated landscapes. Ecological Modelling 200, 403–411.

Dunedin City Council, 2007: A Biodiversity Strategy forDunedin City. Dunedin City Council, Dunedin.

Dymond, J.R., Ausseil, A.E. and Overton, J.M., 2008: Alandscape approach for estimating the conservation valueof sites and site-based projects, with examples from NewZealand. Ecological Economics 66, 275–281.

Ewers, R.M., Kapos, V., Coomes, D.A., Lafortezza, R. andDidham, R.K., 2009: Mapping community change inmodified landscapes. Biological Conservation 142, 2872–2880.

Foody, G.M., 2008: GIS: biodiversity applications. Progressin Physical Geography 32, 223–235.

Freeman, C. and Buck, O., 2003: Development of an ecologi-cal mapping method for urban areas in New Zealand.Landscape and Urban Planning 63, 161–173.

Freeman, C., Mathieu, R. and van Heezik, Y., 2007: Enhanc-ing Understanding of Urban Biodiversity, ParliamentaryCommissioner for the Environment, Sustainability Review:Background Papers. PCE, Wellington. Retrieved 1 Sep-tember 2010 from <http://www.pce.govt.nz>.

Gillespie, T.W., Foody, G.M., Duccio, R., Giorgi, A.P. andSaatchi, S., 2008: Measuring and modelling biodiversityfrom space. Progress in Physical Geography 32, 203–221.

van Heezik, Y., Ludwig, K., Whitwell, S. and McLean, I.G.,2008: Nest survival of birds in an urban environment inNew Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 32, 155–165.

Leathwick, J., Morgan, F., Wilson, G., Rutledge, D., McLeod,M. and Johnston, K., 2003: Land Environments of NewZealand. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington.

Levin, N., McAlpine, C., Phinn, S., Price, B., Pullard, D.,Kavanagh, R.P. and Law, B.S., 2009: Mapping forestpatches and scattered trees from SPOT images and testingtheir ecological importance for woodland birds in a frag-mented agricultural landscape. International Journal ofRemote Sensing 30, 3147–3169.

McDermid, G.J., Franklin, S.E. and LeDrew, E.F., 2005:Remote sensing for large-area habitat mapping. Progressin Physical Geography 29, 449–474.

Mathieu, R., Aryal, J. and Chong, A., 2007a: Object-basedclassification of ikonos imagery for mapping large scalevegetation communities in urban areas. Sensors 7, 2860–2880.

Mathieu, R., Freeman, C. and Aryal, J., 2007b: Mappingprivate gardens in urban areas using object-oriented tech-niques and very high-resolution satellite imagery. Land-scape and Urban Planning 81, 179–192.

Meurk, C.D. and Hall, G.M.J., 2006: Options for enhancingforest biodiversity across New Zealand’s managed land-scapes based on ecosystem modeling and spatial design.New Zealand Journal of Ecology 30, 131–146.

Meurk, C.D. and Swaffield, S.R., 2000: A landscape ecologi-cal framework for indigenous regeneration in rural NewZealand-Aotearoa. Landscape and Urban Planning 50,129–144.

Mortberg, U.M., Balfors, B. and Knoll, W.C., 2007: Land-scape ecological assessment: a tool for integrating biodi-versity issues in strategic environmental assessment andplanning. Journal of Environmental Management 82, 457–470.

New Zealand Climate Change Office and Ministry for theEnvironment, 2004: New Zealand Land Cover Database 2:User Guide. Wellington, New Zealand.

Potschin, M. and Haines-Young, R., 2006: Editorial. Land-scape and Urban Planning 75, 155–161.

Temorhuizen, J.W., Opdam, P. and Den Brink, A., 2007:Incorporating ecological sustainability into landscapeplanning. Landscape and Urban Planning 79, 374–384.

Thackway, R. and Lesslie, R., 2008: Describing and mappinghuman-induced vegetation change in the Australian land-scape. Environmental Management 42, 572–590.



Tole, L., 2006: Choosing reserve sites probabilistically: acolombian amazon case study. Ecological Modelling 194,344–356.

Vogt, P., Riiters, K.H., Iwanowsky, M., Estreguil, C., Kozak,J. and Soille, P., 2007: Mapping landscape corridors. Eco-logical Indicators 7, 481–488.

Vogt, P., Ferrari, J.R., Lookingbill, T.R., Gardner, R.H.,Riiters, K.R. and Ostapowicz, K., 2009: Mapping func-tional connectivity. Ecological Indicators 9, 64–71.

Walker, S., Price, R. and Rutledge, D., 2004: New Zealand’sRemaining Indigenous Cover: Recent Changes and Biodi-versity Protection Needs. Department of Conservation,Wellington.

Weiers, S., Bock, M., Wissen, M. and Rossner, G., 2004:Mapping and indicator approaches for the assessment ofhabitats at different scales using remote sensing and GISmethods. Landscape and Urban Planning 67, 43–65.

Wittig, R. and Schreiber, M., 1983: A quick methodfor assessing the importance of open spaces in towns forurban nature conservation. Biological Conservation 26,57–64.

Wyatt, B.K., 2000: Vegetation mapping from ground air andspace – competitive or complementary techniques. InAlexander, R. and Millington, A.C. (eds) VegetationMapping from Patch to Planet. John Wiley and Sons,Chichester, 3–15.



creating ecologically based land use and habitat maps quickly and cheaply to support conservation...

Documents