Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Use of an Ecologic Classification to Improve Water Resource Planning in New Zealand

  • ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Resource Management Act (RMA) legislates the management of most natural resources in New Zealand. The RMA invokes ecosystem-based management by requiring that regulation be based on managing the effects of resource according to “the life supporting capacity” of the environment. The management of water resources under the RMA is carried out at the regional level by regional councils. Regional councils can develop regional water plans to establish objectives and criteria for water management. Regional water planning under the RMA has been problematic, and regional plan objectives developed under the RMA have been criticized as too broad and not sufficiently quantified. As a consequence, many resource users are unconvinced of the need for the regulatory criteria promulgated by plans, whereas other groups are concerned that the environment is inadequately protected. This article proposes that a lack of ecologically relevant management units has prevented regional water plans from fulfilling their intended function under the RMA. Then it introduces the use of River Environment Classification as a means of defining units for assessment and management, and provides three case studies that demonstrate its potential to support regional water management planning. The discussion shows that the specificity of regional assessments can be increased if ecologic variation is stratified into distinctive units (i.e., units within which variation in the characteristics of interest is reduced) as part of the assessment process. The increased specificity of the assessments increases the possibility that regional objectives and criteria for water management can be derived that are quantitative and justifiable and that provide certainty for stakeholders. The authors conclude that greater choice and meaning can be generated in regional planning processes if regional variation in ecologic characteristics is stratified using a classification, and if classes are used as units for assessment and management.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  • Bailey R. G. 1995. Ecosystem geography. Springer-Verlag, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs B. J. F. 1996. Hydraulic habitat of plants in streams. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 12:131–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs B. J. F. 2000. Eutrophication of streams and rivers: Dissolved nutrient–chlorophyll relationships. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19:17–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs B. J. F., M. J. Duncan, I. G. Jowett, J. M. Quinn, C. W. Hickey, R. J. Davies-Colley, M. E. Close. 1990. Ecological characterisation, classification, and modelling of New Zealand rivers: An introduction and synthesis. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 24:277–304

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs B. J. F., S. Stokseth. 1996. Hydraulic habitat suitability for periphyton in rivers. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management. 12:251–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourgeron P. S., H. C. Humphries, M. E. Jensen. 2001. Ecosystem characterization and ecological assessments. In: M. E. Jensen, P. S. Bourgeron (eds). A Guidebook for integrated ecological assessments. Springer-Verlag, New York. pp 40–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Brussard P. F., J. M. Reed, C. R. Tracy. 1998. Ecosystem management: What is it really? Landscape and Urban Planning 40:9–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryce S. A., J. M. Omernik, D. P. Larsen. 1999. Ecoregions: A geographic framework to guide risk characterization and ecosystem management. Environmental Practice 1:141–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Canterbury Regional Council. 2004. Proposed natural resources regional plan. Chapter 4: Water quality. Canterbury Regional Council, New Zealand

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter C. A., W. N. Busch, D. T. Clelend, J. Gallegos, R. Harris, R. Holm, C. Topik, A. Williamson 1999. The use of ecological classification in management. In: N. C. Johnson, A. J. Mack, W. T. Sexton, R. C. Szaro (eds). Ecological stewardship: A Common reference for ecosystem management. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. pp 395–430

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen N. L., A. M. Bartuska, J. H. Brown, S. Carpenter, C. D’Antionio, R. Francis, J. F. Franklin, J. A. MacMahon, F. N. Reed, D. J. Parsons, C. H. Peterson, M. G. Turner, R. G. Woodmansee. 1996. The report of the Ecological Society of America committee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecological Applications 6:665–691

    Google Scholar 

  • Cocklin C. K., S. Parker, J. Hay. 1992. Notes on cumulative environmental change. Journal of Environmental Management 35:51–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Contant C. K., L. L. Wiggins. 1991. Defining and analyzing cumulative environmental impacts. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 11:297–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies-Colley R. J. 1988. Measuring water clarity with a black disc. Limnology and Oceanogrophy 33:616–623

    Google Scholar 

  • Detenbeck N. E., S. L. Batterman, V. L. Brady, J. C. Brazner, V. N. Snarski, D. L. Taylor, J. A. Thompson, J. W. Arthur. 2000. A test of watershed classification systems for ecological risk assessment. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 19:1174–1181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodds W. K., J. R. Jones, E. B. Welch. 1998. Suggested classification of stream trophic state: Distributions of temperate stream types by chlorophyll, total nitrogen, and phosphorus. Water Research 32:1455–1462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, N., J. Crawford, P. Berke, and J. Dixon. 2001. Resource management, plan quality, and governance: A report to government. Page 71. University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

  • Grossman D. H., P. S. Bourgeron, W. D. N. Bush, D. Cleland, W. Platts, G. C. Ray, C. R. Robins, G. Roloff 1999. Principles for ecological classification. In: N. C. Johnson, A. J. Mack, W. T. Sexton, R. C. Szaro (eds). Ecological stewardship: A common reference for ecosystem management. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. pp 353–393

    Google Scholar 

  • Grumbine R. E. 1994. What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology 8:27–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holling C. S. 1980. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. John Wiley & Sons, Bath, United Kingdom

    Google Scholar 

  • Klijn F., R. W. Dewaal, J. H. O. Voshaar. 1995. Ecoregions and ecodistricts: Ecological regionalizations for the Netherlands environmental policy. Environmental Management 19:797–813

    Google Scholar 

  • Larned S. T., M. R. Scarsbrook, T. Snelder, N. J. Norton, B. J. F. Biggs. 2004. Water quality in low-elevation streams and rives of New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38:347–366

    Google Scholar 

  • McLea M. 1999. Using river habitat classification in regional plans. Ministry for the environment, Wellington, New Zealand. Page 36

    Google Scholar 

  • McMahon G., S. M. Gregonis, S. W. Waltman, J. M. Omernik, T. D. Thorson, J. A. Freeouf, A. H. Rorick, Keys J. E. 2001. Developing a spatial framework of common ecological regions for the conterminous United States. Environmental Management 28:293–316.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Memon P. A. 1997. Freshwater management policies in New Zealand. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 7:305–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry for the Environment (MFE). 1994. Issues, objectives, policies, methods and results under the Resource Management Act. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry for the Environment (MFE). 1998. Land use control under the Resource Management Act analysis of submissions. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry for the Environment (MFE). 1999. Managing vegetation disturbance activities under the RMA: The way forward[m]forestry and the RMA. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry for the Environment (MFE). 2000. New Zealand periphyton guideline: Detecting, monitoring and managing enrichment of streams. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry for the Environment (MFE). 2003. Nationwide and regional state and trends in river water quality, 1996–2002. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand

    Google Scholar 

  • Omernik J. M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77:118–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Omernik J. M. 1995. Ecoregions: A spatial framework for environmental management. In: W. S. Davis, T. P. Simon (eds). Biological assessment and criteria: Tools for water resource planning and decision making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. pp 49–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 1996. New Zealand: Environmental performance review. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer G. 1995. Environment: The international challenge. Victoria University Press, Wellington, New Zealand

    Google Scholar 

  • Park G. 2000. New Zealand as ecosystems: The ecosystem concept as a tool for environmental management and conservation. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand

    Google Scholar 

  • Pyle E., R. Ward, G. McBride, B. Huser. 2001. Establishing watershed management in law: New Zealand’s experience. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37:783–792

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn J. M., A. B. Cooper, R. J. Davis-Colley, J. C. Rutherford, R. B. Williamson. 1997. Land use effects on habitat, water quality, periphyton, and benthic invertebrates in Waikato, New Zealand, hill-country streams. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 31:579–597

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohm C. M., J. M. Omernik, A. J. Woods, J. L. Stoddard. 2002. Regional characteristics of nutrient concentrations in streams and their application to nutrient criteria development. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 38:213–237

    Google Scholar 

  • Slocombe D. S. 1993. Implementing ecosystem-based management: Development of theory, practice, and research for planning and managing a region. BioScience 43:612–622

    Google Scholar 

  • Smit B., H. Spaling. 1995. Methods for cumulative effects assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 51:81–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith D. G., R. Maasdam. 1994. New Zealand’s national water quality network. 1. Design and physiochemical characterisation. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 28:19–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Snelder T. H., B. J. F. Biggs. 2002. Multiscale river environment classification for water resources management. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 38:1225–1240

    Google Scholar 

  • Snelder T. H., F. Cattaneo, A. M. Suren, B. J. F. Biggs. 2004a. Is the River Environment Classification an improved landscape-scale classification of rivers? Journal of the North American Benthological Society 23:580–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snelder T. H., M. Weatherhead, B. J. F. Biggs. 2004b. Nutrient concentration criteria, and characterization of patterns in trophic state for rivers in heterogeneous landscapes. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 40:1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Snelder T. H., R. Woods, B. J. F. Biggs. 2005. Improved ecohydrological classification of rivers. River Research and Applications 21(6):609–628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szaro R. C., W. T. Sexton, C. R. Malone. 1998. The emergence of ecosystem management as a tool for meeting people’s needs and sustaining ecosystems. Landscape and Urban Planning 40:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Roon M., S. Knight 2004. Ecological context of development: New Zealand perspectives. Oxford, Melbourne, Australia

    Google Scholar 

  • Waikato Regional Council. 2004. Proposed Waikato regional plan. Waikato Regional Council, Hamilton, New Zealand

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellington Regional Council (WRC). 1999. Regional freshwater plan for the Wellington Region. Page 166. in Wellington Regional Council, Wellington, New Zealand

  • West Coast Regional Council. 2004. West Coast regional water management plan. Page 136. in West Coast Regional Council, Greymouth, New Zealand

  • Westley F. 1995. Governing design: The management of social systems and ecosystems management. In: L. H. Gunderson, C. S. Holling, S. S. Light (eds). Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions. Columbia University Press, New York. pp 391–427

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilcock R. J., G. B. McBride, J. W. Nagels, G. L. Northcott. 1995. Water quality in a polluted lowland stream with chronically depressed dissolved oxygen: Causes and effects. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 29:277–288

    Google Scholar 

  • Yaffee S. L. 1998. Three faces of ecosystem management. Conservation Biology 13:713–725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young D. 2001. Values as law: The history and efficacy of the Resource Management Act. Institute of Policy Studies, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Elizabeth Eastmure, Kirsty Johnson, and Megan Linwood of the New Zealand Ministry for the Environment, and Raymond Ford and John Glennie of Canterbury Regional Council for their ongoing support and encouragement for our research. We thank the regional, district, and city council staff that provided water quality and hydrologic data. We also extend thanks to our colleagues at NIWA for their contributions: Scott Larned, Kathy Walter, Helen Hurren, and Mark Weatherhead, who organized data, and Ned Norton and Jonet Ward, who reviewed the final manuscript. We thank Naomi Detenbeck and an anonymous reviewer whose comments improved our original manuscript. Financial support was provided by the New Zealand Ministry for the Environment and the Water Allocation Program (Contract C01X0308) of the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, P.O. Box 8602, Riccarton, Christchurch, New Zealand

    T. H. Snelder

  2. Environment, Society and Design Division, Lincoln University, P.O. Box 84, New Zealand

    K. F. D. Hughey

Authors
  1. T. H. Snelder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. K. F. D. Hughey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. H. Snelder.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Snelder, T.H., Hughey, K.F.D. The Use of an Ecologic Classification to Improve Water Resource Planning in New Zealand. Environmental Management 36, 741–756 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0324-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0324-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation